jr„.    ..•••..•■%.-••..•    •-■    •..-•.■    S--    -  ^.-    ■..-    •••    ■••      -.^^ 

•r  FROM  THE  .:•:., 

/American  Baptist  Pwl>- v 
>        iicatioii  Society,        V 

^'No.  31  North  Sixth  St.  Phil.S> 
<^  B.  R.  Loxley,  Dep.  Agent,  'x 

'^  -y ■■ .' ••..'••.'••.•■•••.••■  --v  •••••■  V ••.••"•■.■•■  ••.••■  ••.' ■•..••■  (fN 


^ 

^ 

CL 

1 

\            ,^ 

(tT 

j 

/? 

IE 
3 

,  c^ 

^ 

J5 

-j.-^ 

IE 

1 

— ^ 

>^ 

Q. 

1 

ij 

;      i 

*^ 

^ 

O 

^ 

•N 

$ 

o 

g 

c 

«^ 

o 

bO 

rs 

»i5 

^ 

<t 

^ 
^ 

i^ 

"S 

3 

/            OsT 

|Zi 

E 

.«o 

-o 

M 

I'j 

>^ 

^ 

rt 

CO 

1- 

"^^i 

P4 

«4 

Ot 

^ 

^ 

^ 

-T3 

^' 

'<f^ 

C 

^ 

E 

O) 
to 
0) 

^ 

CL 

1 

CONVERSATION 


BETWEEN  TWO  LAYMEN, 


ON    THE    SUBJECTS   AND    MODE    OF 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM 


CHURCH  COMMUNION, 


F  O  R  jVI  I  N  G    A    COMPLETE    i^I  A  N  U  A.  L 


i.  mJ«:]? 


BY  CHAS.  Mj*»E]¥I>i:.ETON, 

MEMBER   OF  THE    FIRST   BAPTIST   CHURCH,    CLEVELAND. 


Let  TRUTH  grapple  with  error  ;  who  ever  knew  truth  worsted  in  a  free  and  open 
encounter  ?— Milton. 
"Buy  the  truth,  and  sell  it  not." — "Truth  needs  no  apology,  anderror  deserves  none."' 
"Earnestly  contend  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints." 


CLEVELAND : 


Sold  by  SANFORD  &  CO.,  Clevei^and,  O.  ;  A,  S  MADDOX,  Richmond,  Va. 

GOULD.  KENDALL  &  LINCOLN,  and  the  N.  E.  S.  SCHOOL  UNION 

DEPOSITORY,  Boston;  GEO.  P.  DANIELS,  Providence,  R.  L 

Am.  Bap.  Pub.  S.  S.  Depository,  Phil.  ;  J.  Barker,  N.  Y. 

and  Bennet,  Backus  &•  Hawley,  Utica,  N.  Y. 

1840, 


Entered  according  to  act  of  Congress,  by 

CHAS.  H.  PENDLETON, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  of  Ohio, 


nEC'OinJIEIVDATSOlVS. 

IFrom  the  Rev.  Levi  Tucker,  A.  M.  Pastor  of  the  First  Baptist  Ckurck, 
Cleveland.  ] 
C.  H.  Pendleton. 
Dear  Brother : 

I  have  examined  with  much  interest  and  profit,  your3Ianuel  oti  Baptism  and  Com« 
munion,  and  am  convinced  in  my  own  mind,  tliat  it  is  destined  tojdo  much  good.  Al- 
though there  has  been  much  written,  and  many  volumes  are  now  before  the  public  on 
the  subject,  yet  there  is  siill,  upon  this  most  expressive  and  important  ordinance,  a  vast 
amount  of  ignorance  in  the  Christian  church.  It  is  tlierefore  clearly  the  diJ^.-of  the 
Baptists,  in  the  exercise  of  Christian  charity,  to  give  their  erring  brethren  "line  upon 
line,  and  precept  upon  precept,"  and  exhort  them  to  "make  straight  paths  for  their  feet, 
lest  that  which  is  lame  be  turned  out  of  the  way."  Yoar  references  to  classic  usage, 
and  quotations  from  the  Fathfks,  and  from  modern  PeJobaptists,  triumphantly  an- 
swer all  objections,  and  completely  settles  the  fiict,  that  believers  are  the  only  su' jects, 
and  immersion  the  only  mode  of  gospel  baptism.  Your  reasoning  upon  the  subject 
from  the  "usus  loquendi"  of  the  terms  employed  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  is  irre- 
fragable.—Infant  sprinkling  is  most  unquestionably  the  very  foundation  and  pillar  of 
Popery,  designed  to  be  the  great  link  to  connect  church  and  state,  in  order  to  form  a 
NATIONAL  RELIGION,  and  SO  to  unitcthe  kingdom  of  light  with  the  kingdom  of  darkness, 
as  to  form  a  misty  f^ilight,  in  the  dimness  of  which,  things  doubtful  and  anti-scrip- 
tural should  appear  to  be  "  confirmation  strong  as  proofs  of  holy  writ." 

I  believe  it  must  and  will  appear  to  every  candid  reader  of  your  excellent  Manuel, 
that  infant  subjects,  and  a  sprinkling  mode  cf  gospel  baptism,  were  alike  unauthorized 
by  Jesus  Christ  or  his  apoGties,  and  unknown  in  the  first  centuries  of  the  church,  and 
are,  by  whom  ever  practised,  the  certain  badges  of  their  descent  from  the  "  3Iistress  of 
Babylon,"  the  ''Mother  Church." 

Your  views  of  communion,  I  think  equally  clear  and  conclusive.  "Whoever  wishes 
to  become  fully  acquainted  with  the  objections  commonly  urged  against  the  Baptists, 
upon  the  subjects  of  baptism  and  the  communion,  will  see  them  fairly  stated,  and  most 
clearly  refuted,  in  this  work.  No  Baptist  can  rise  from  a  perusal  of  it,  without  feel- 
ing fully  convinced  in  his  own  mind,  that  his  sentiments,  as  a  Baptist,  are  a  part  of 
that  immutable  truth,  "which  shall  abide  and  live  forever." 

It  gives  me  very  great  pleasure,  to  recommend  this  work  to  the  Christian  public, 
hoping  and  praying  that  it  may  prove  a  "  light  to  the  feet,  and  a  lamp  to  the  path" 
of  every  humble  and  sincere  inquirer  after  truth. 

LEVI  TUCKER. 

Cleveland,  June  28,  1S40. 


IFrom  the  Rev.  Joseph  Elliott,  A  M.  late  Principal  of  Middlebury  Academy, 

Wyoming,  N.  F.] 

Charles  H.  Pendleton,  Esq. 
Dear  Brother : 

I  have  read  much  on  the  subject  discussed  in  your  pamphlet,  which  you  had  the 
politeness  to  allow  me  the  pleasure  hastily  to  peruse,  but  have  seen  nothing  embracing 
the  merits  of  the  subject,  so  well  adapted  to  do  good  to  the  common  reader,  and  yet  in- 


INTRODUCTION 


"It  is  reported  to  have  been  said  by  Coleridge,  '  there  is  the  love  of  the  good  for  th« 
good's  sake,  and  the  love  of  the  truth  for  liie  truth's  sake.  To  tee,  clearly,  that  the  love 
of  the  good  and  the  true  is  ultimately  identical, — is  given  only  to  those  who  love  both  sin- 
cerely, and  without  any  foreign  ends.'  Alas!  how  often  have  tliey  been  disjoined!  On 
the  one  side,  how  nianj'  iiave  been  disposed  to  promote  what  is  good,  at  the  expense  of 
trjih  ;  and,  on  the  otlicr,  how  many,  in  promoting  the  cause  of  truth,  have  sacrificed 
what  is  good,  and  clothed  themselves  with  the  spirit  of  bitterness  and  strife  as  witli  a  gar- 
ment !  A  vii-ible  and  acknowledged  union  among  all  Christians  is  a  great  good — '  a  con- 
Bumuiation  devoutly  to  be  wished,' — butliosv  is  it  to  be  accomplished?  Most  certainly,  not 
by  denunciation  or  silence  ;  not  by  truces  and  compromises, by  legislation  or  acts  of  diplo- 
macy ;  but  it  must  be  done,  if  done  at  all,  by  each  seeking  truth  with  an  honest  heart, 
acting  according  to  it  and  speaking  jt  in  love.  Christian  union  can  flourisli  in  no  other 
soil,  but  a  '  KNovvLEDGfi  OF  THE  TRUTH.'  '  If  we  Walk  in  the  light,  as  lie  is  in  the  light, 
we  have  fellowship  one  with  another.'  Whoever  seeks  truth  from  the  love  of  it,  and  iu 
love  endeavors  to  dilfuse  it,  does  something  to  promote  the  real  unity  of  the  church. 
For,  even  if  he  adopts  soino  incidental  error,  thesj)iritof  his  mind  will  lead  him  to  receive 
fresh  light  with  tiiankfulness,  and  thus  truth  will  gain  the  greater  triumph.  As  far  as 
diiforent  sects  of  Christians  are  already  agreed  on  essential  truths,  so  far  it  becomes  them 
tochorisli  for  each  other,  as  Christians,  a  fervent  fellowship.  If  we  have  'one  Lord,  one 
Fait'.i,  one  God  and  Fiither  of  a!!,'  even  though  we  have  not  '  one  baptism,'  we  ougiit  to 
love  each  other,  witli  pure  he;i.rts  fervently.  In  such  a  case,  we  haye  already  laid  the 
basis  fora  cordial  union  of  spirit,  and  tlirough  obedience  to  the  truth  have  purified  our 
souls  unto  unfeigned  love  ofthc  brethren. 

The  diiferencc  of  opinion  between  the  Baptists  and  other  evangelical  Christians,  is  not  so 
much  touching  t!ie  spiritual  doctrines  of  the  church,  as  its  constitution.  Tliey  do  already, 
if  til;!}'  breathe  tiie  spirit  of  their  system,  hold  spiritual  communion  with  all  who  love 
Christ, — the  same  kind  of  communion  which  will  prevail  in  heaven,  where  the  state  of 
society  will  not  recjuirc  any  tangible  memorials,  to  transmit  from  age  to  age  the  rcmemr 
braucc  ofthc  Savior's  death.  But  they  diii'er  from  other  Christians  on  this  question  :  What 
is  essential  to  the  right  constitution  of  the  Christian  church?  They  set  out  with  the 
great  principle,  that  noije  but  moral  agents,  who  act  from  choice,  are  proper  subjects  of 
churcli  membership  or  church  ordinances.  They  not  only  say,  with  others,  that  the 
church  is  a  spiritual  association,  and  that  its  constitution  is  not  national,  but  thence  infer 
that  none  are  brought  into  alliance  with  it  by  natural  birth,  or  blood,or  parental  dedication. 
They  hold,  with  John  Locke,  that '  a  church  is  a  free  and  voluntary  society;  nobody  is  born 
a  member  of  any  church;  otherwise, the  religion  of  pareiits  would  descend  unto  children  by 
the  same  right  of  inheritance  a.s  their  temporal  estates,  and  every  one  would  hold  his  faith 
by  the  same  tenure  as  he  does  his  lands.'  Tliey  deny,  that  there  is  any  power  inherent  or 
conferred,  in  outward  rites,  to  bring  a  human  being  into  covenant  with  God.  Hence,  they 
withhold  the  initiating  rite  of  Christianity  from  all,  except  those  who  profess  repentance  for 
sill  and  faith  in  Christ.  These  princij)les  they  deem  of  high  importance,  and  value  a  right 
constitution  of  the  church,  not  only  because  it  is  best  adapted  to  preserve  the  purity  of  her 
doctrines,  but  because  it  bears  upon  it  the  sacred  seal  of  God's  authority. 

Tu  these  principles  they  ask  the  attention  of  the  world.  They  say,  let  them  be  examin- 
incd  by  their  own  liglit,  and  the  light  of  revelalion.  The  very  announcement  of  them  is 
ada])ted  to  carry  a  convictipn  of  responsiI)ility  to  every  man's  bosom,  and  to  lead  each  to 
think  and  act  for  himself,  feeling,  that  v.'hilo  he  lives  in  impenitence,  beholds  no  special 
relation  to  God,  on  wiiicli  his  conscience  can  repose.  They  think,  that  these  principles 
are  the  same  as  those  preaclied  by  the  Apostles,  the  same  as  those  held  in  different  ages  by 
various  communitin's  of  .Christians,  who  acknowledged  not  the  dominion  of  the  Komish 
church;  the  same  as  those  maintauiod  by  their  ow  n  Roger  Williams,  the  champion  of  reli- 
gious liberty,  who  sought  to  secure  them  an  asvlum  on  the  shores  of  Rhode  Island,  amid 
winter's  cold  and  tempest's  blasts,  and  persecution  still  more  relentless  than  a  winter's 
)sl:y,  or  '  the  pelting  of  the  pitiless  storm.'  Though  they  are  more  clearly  seen  and  hon- 
ored now  than  they  were  formally,  yet  they  remain  too  much  in  the  shade.  If  they  shall 
ever  be  brought  fully  out  to  light,  and  allowed  their  legitimate  sway,  we  believe  that  era 
will  be  the  precursor  of  iho  universal  triu,:ii)li  of  primitive  Christianity." — Hague, 


A  FAMILIAR  CONVE 


H|A^ior* 


ON 


BAPTISM  AND  COMMUNION, 


Baptist. — Good  morning,  my  dear  brother.  It  is  vvitli  much 
pleasure  I  am  permitted  to  meet  you.  Walk  in  and  take  a  seat. 
*  *  *  I  observed  you  at  our  meeting  last  evening.  How 
were  you  interested  in  the  exercises  ? 

Pedobaptist. — Very  much.  The  liberal  manner  in  which 
the  meeting  was  conducted,  afforded  me  much  pleasure.  It 
was  truly  interesting,  to  see  the  members  of  different 
evangelical  denominations,  take  part  in  the  exercises.  It  vvaa 
an  emblem  of  what  I  anticipate  will  take  place  in  Heaven. — 
After  I  returned  home  last  evening,  while  meditating  upon  the 
Christian  catholic  feelings,  which  were  ea:e/VipZ//^"ef/ by  the  mem- 
bers of  yourciiurch,  in  the  conference  room,  I  was  reminded  of 
the  hard  names,  and  opprobious  epithets,  which  have  been  so 
profusely  poured  out  upon  your  denomination.  And  I  invol. 
untarily  said  to  myself,  is  it  possible,  that  a  denomination,  so 
liberal  and  social  in  their  meetings,  are  as  bigoted,  unchristian^ 
and  illiberal  in  their  views,  as  they  have  been  represented. 
May  it  not  be,  after  all,  that  these  statements  are,  in  a  great 
measure,  exaggeration.  And  then  I  resolved,  that  in  the  morn- 
ing I  would  avail  myself  of  the  opportunity  to  call  on  you,  and 
hear  what  you  might  have  to  say  in  defejice  of  your  "  sect,'* 
which  I  presume  you  are  conscious  is  ^^  every  where  spoken 
against.^^  Now,  if  you  are  not  engaged  this  morning,  I  should 
like  to  converse  with  you  on  your  distinguishing  sentimenta, 
and  endeavor  to  ascertain  how  far  our  views  harmonize,  and 
the  precise  points  in  which  we  differ  with  regard  to  our  religious 
tenets. 

** 


Baptist. — As  I  have  no  enga«,^nments  this  morning,  it  will 
aflbnl  me  pleasure  lo  sit  d(»wn  with  you  and  canvass  our  views 
and  sjntirii'jnts,  and  scan  them  by  the  Word  of  (lod — the  Law 
and  the  'J'cstitnony.  And  here,  1  would  reiuark,  that  it' we  in- 
tend  to  ascertain  what  is  truth — what  the  Bible  teaches,  it  is  of 
the  utmost  importance  that  we  lay  aside  the  pride  of  intellect, 
all  party  zeal,  every  favorite  preconceived  opinion,  and  "  the 
%v'!sdom  of  this  world,"  and  approach  the  Sacred  Word,  not 
with  the  torch  of  human  philosophy,  sayinf>^  what  is  consistent 
or  inconsistent  with  reason  ; — not  with  a  dictatorial  spirit,  say- 
ing what  it  ought  to  teach  and  what  it  oui^dit  not  teach  ;  but 
with  "  our  minds  characlerized  by  that  childlike  humility,  so 
beautifully  described"  by  our  Savior,  and  so  sacredly  enjoined 
as  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to  the  reception  of  truth;  and 
in  the  absence  of  which,  no  man  can  even  hope  to  enter  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  In  this  respect,  the  same  laws  govern  the 
natural,  as  the  moral  world.  Thus  it  was  with  Sir  Isaac  New- 
ton, wh:^.n  his  mind  was  clothed  with  childlike  simplicity,  "na- 
ture held  communion  with  him  as  with  a  favorite  son."  To 
him  she  unfoldad  the  laws  that  govern  the  materia!  world,  "and, 
taking  him  by  the  hand,  she  led  him  over  the  wide  expanse  of 
universal  being."  In  like  manner,  Jesus  Christ  "reveals  him- 
self to  him  who  is  of  a  humble  and  a  contrite  spirit,"  "  as  ho 
does  not  to  the  world;"  and  "opens  his  eyes  to  behold  won- 
drous things  out  of  his  Lav/."  Now,  would  we  discover  the 
Jaws  that  Jesus  ilhrist  has  instituted  for  the  constitution  and 
gomrnment  of  his  church,  it  is  evident  that  the  speculations  of 
genius  and  philosophy  must  give  place  to  that  deep  humility  of 
heart,  which  alone  will  induce  us  to  search  the  Sacred  Oracles 
with  a  diligent,  prayerful  spirit,  asking  wisdom  of  i/iw,  "  in 
whom  are  hid  all  its  treasures,"  (and  who  has  promised  to  be. 
stow  it  liberally  on  all  who  ask  for  it,)  that  we  may,  in  this 
prescribed  manner,  b(^  enabled  to  discriver  the  mind  and  icill  of 
Christ  ;  and  obtain  that  disposition  of  heart  which  will  lead 
us  to  "  w^ilk  in  all  His  commandments  and  ordinances  blame, 
Jess."  m  this  manner  may  we  hope  to  obtain  that  blessing, 
which  isprondunced  upon  those  "  who  follow  the  Lamb  whith- 
ersoever he  goeth." 

"  This,  as  I  presume  you  are  aware,  is  not  a  subject  of  trifling 
importance,  inasmuch  as  it  involves  the  purity  and  prosperity 
of  the  church,  designed  by  our  Lord  to  r<>present  his  kingdom 
here  on  earth, — to  exhibit  to  the  world  something  of  its  order 
and  harmony,  and  the  purity  and  excellency  of  its  principles, 
,aa^  instrumentaliy  to  carry  forward  hia  designs  of  mercy,  uo.- 


til  his  name  and  his  praise  shall  ba  one  in  all  the  earth."  Here, 
let  ii  ba  remembered,  that  Infinite  Wisdom  has  in  no  sense  in- 
vested  man  with  i\ discretionary  'power,  which  authorizes  him  to 
alter  any  of  the  laws,  instituted  by  Christ  for  the  constitution 
and  government  of  His  churchy  His  spiritctal  kingdom  on 
earth,  however  celebrated  he  may  be  for  learning,  or  eminent  for 
piety. 

Let  us  both  pledge  ourselves  to  each  other,  and  to  Him  who 
died  for  us,  th.it  we  will  submit  our  sentiments  and  views  to 
the  oracles  of  Divine  Truth,  fully  determined  in  the  strength  of 
the  Lord  that  we  will  renounce  every  sentiment,  that  is  not  in 
conformity  to  the  requirements  of  Christ,  let  it  cost  whatever 
self-denial  it  may.  Should  we  finally  be  so  happy  as  to  enter  heav- 
en, probably  we  shall  then  see  things  as  they  are,  "  v/hich  is  the 
sublimest  thing  in  nature."  \V^e  shall  then  receive  no  satisfac- 
tion in  discovering,  that  we  permitted  "our  mental  vision  to  bo 
obscured  by  passion  or  prejudice"  for  the  want  of  that  thor- 
ough, impartial  examination  which  it  is  the  duty  of  all  to 
make.  Surely,  no  satisf  iction  can  then  arise  from  the  con- 
sciousness that  we,  through  sheer  neglect  of  investigation,  have 
thus  thrown  the  "weight  of  our  influence,  or  any  part  of  it, 
into  the  scale  of  error,  either  in  principle  or  practice.  If  we 
shall  derive  satisfaction  from  any  thing  we  shall  have  done  on 
earth,  it  will  bj  for  our  having  diligently  and  prayerfully  sought 
for  the  truth  and  closely  adhered  to  it." 

Pedohaptist. — Your  remarks  I  deem  very  appropriate,  and 
pledge  myself  most  sacredly,  to  renounce  every  religious  sen- 
timent,  not  authorized  by  the  word  of  God  ;  and  bow  with  deep 
humility  to  his  commandments,  and  to  Apostolical  example. 
Now,  as  it  is  much  easier  to  ask  than  answer  questions,  with 
your  permission  I  would  like  to  throw  the  laboring  oar  on  you. 

Baptist. — I  shall  not  complain  of  taking  it  my  part  of  the 
time,  and  will  endeavor  to  use  it  as  skilfully  as   possible. 

Pedohaptist. — Do  the  Baptist  denomination  believe,  with  the 
Pedobaplist,  that  baptism  is  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to 
communion  at  the  Lord's  Table  ? 

Baptist — Oh  yes  !  ^ 

Pedobaptist. — It  would  gratify  me  to  hear  what  authority 
and  evidence  you  have  to  support  this  belief. 

Baptist. — The  precepts  of  Christ  and  the  example  of  the 
Apostles. — The  great  Law  of  the  commission  runs  thus  :  "  Go 
ye  forth,  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  teaching  them 
to  observe  all  things  whatsoviver  I  have  commanded  you,"  etc. 


From  this  commission,  it  is  evident  that  after  baptism,  our 
Lord  enjoined  an  observance  of  all  things  whatsoever  he  had 
commanded;  and  as  he  had  previously  commanded  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  is  obvious  that  that  was  to  fljUow 
baptism.  And  indeed  we  learn  from  scripture,  that  the  Apos- 
tles thus  understood  the  commission ;  for  the  first  time  Peter 
preached  under  its  authority,  he  commanded  his  hearers  to  "  re- 
pent and  be  baptized  ;"  and  afterwards"  with  many  other  words 
did  he  testify  and  exhort." 

It  is  also  plain  from  scripture,  that  the  people  so  understood 
the  Apostlesjfor  the  narration  says,  "  'J'hey  that  gladly  received 
his  word,  were  baptized  ;  and  the  same  day  there  were  added 
unto  them  about  three  thousand  souls.  And  they  continued 
steadfastly  in  the  Apostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in 
breaking  of  bread,  and  in  prayers." 

Thus  the  primitive  disciples  first  gladly  received  the  word — 
then  were  baptized — then  wer3  added  to  the  church — then  con. 
tinned  steadfastly  in  the  Apostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship, 
and  in  breaking  of  bread,  etc.  'I'hus  Paul  fi:st  believed,  then 
was  baptized,  then  assayed  to  join  himself  to  the  disciples. 

From  my  examination  of  this  subject,  I  am  fully  convinced 
that  the  ancient  churches  all  practised  upon  the  belief,  that 
baptism  is  a  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  I  shall  select 
hut  a  few  of  the  multitude  of  testimonials  to  this  universally 
received  opinion. 

Justin  Martyr  says,  "  This  food  is  called  by  us,  the 
Eucharist ;  of  which  it  is  unlawjul  for  any  to  partake  but 
such  as  believe  the  things  that  are  taught  by  us  to  be  true» 
and  have  been  baptized.'^ 

Dr.  Wall.  No  church  ever  gave  the  communion  to  any  per-- 
sons  before  they  were  baptized.  Among  all  the  absurdities  that 
were  ever  held,  none  ever  maintained  iJ/m/!,that  any  person  should 
partake  of  the  communion  before  he  was  baptized. 

Dr.  Doddridge.  It  is  certain,  that  as  fir  as  our  knowledge 
of  primitive  antiijuity  reaches,  no  unhaptized  person  received 
the  Lord's  Surjper  *  *  *  How  excellent  soever  any  man's 
character  is,  A  must  be  baptized  before  he  can  be  looked  upon 
as  r.omplctely  a  member  of  the  church  of  Christ. 

With  these,  agree  the  testimonies  of  St.  Austine,  Lord  Chan- 
cellor  King,  Benedict  Pictet,  Dr.  Giil,  etc. 

These  testimonies  place  it  beyond  a  doubt,  that  the  ancient 
churches  practised  upon  the  belief  that  baptism  is  a  prerequi. 
site  to  the  Lord^s  Supper.  And  all  modern  churches,  with  but  few 
exoeptions,  pracjiee  upon  the  same  belief 


Pedobaptist. — The  authorities  you  have  produced,  are  very 
satisfactory;  and  so  far  I  perfectly  coincide  with  you.  Indeed 
such  a  coincidence  of  opinion,  as  you  have  adduced  between 
the  precepts  of  Christ  and  the  practice  of  the  Apostles,  and 
l)rimitive  christians,  and  of  the  christian  churcli  in  every  age, 
are  conclusive  evidence  that  Baptism  is  a  prerequisite  to  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Hence,  it  follows  that  no  unbaptized person  has 
either  precept  or  example  in  the  New  Testament,  or  in  the 
practice  of  the  ancient  church,  to  justify  him  in  coming  to  the 
Lord's  Table.  And,  consequently,  no  church  has  any  authori- 
ty for  inviting  such.  Now  since  we  are  so  well  agreed  res- 
pecting the  prerequisites  to  the  Lord's  Table,  what  is  the  rea- 
son  you  will  not  commune  with  me? 

Baptist. — We  have  communed  with  each  other  this  morning 
in  our  christian  intercourse,  as  our  views  have  been  thus  far 
characterized  by  perfect  iiarmony.  Last  evening,  we  com- 
muned together  in  "the  mutual  disclosures  ot'our  hopes  and  fears, 
our  joys  and  sorrows,,  our  prayers  and  exhortations, "and  in  af- 
fectionately endeavoring  to  aid  each  other  onward  in  the  di- 
vine life. 

Pedobaptist. — Ycu  do  not  understand  me:  (  mean  M'hy  do  you 
not  commune  with  me   in  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper? 

Baptist. — Have  you  ever  been  baptized?  And  if  so,  at  what 
age  and  in  what  manner? 

Pedobaptist. — I  have  been  informed  that  I  was  baptized  in  my 
infancy,  by  sprinkling. 

Baptist. — Now,  my  dear  brother,  I  presume  you  are  aware 
that  our  denomination  do  not  regard  sprinkling  as  Christian 
Baptism,  nor  even  the  immersion  of  an  unconscious  infant. — 
No,  nothing  short  of  the  immersion  of  a  believer  in  water. 
And  you  know  the  re-sult  of  our  investigation  ended  in  the  full 
conviction,  that  no  unbaptized  person  had  a  right  to  approach 
the  Lord's  Table.  And  that  no  church  was  authorized  by  the 
Law  of  Christ,  the  example  of  the  Apostles,  or  the  practice  of 
the  ancient  church,  to  invite  such  to  his  Table.  Now  as  we  do 
not  consider  you  baptized,  the  reason  is  obvious,  why  we  do  not 
invite  you  to  a  participation  with  us  at  the  Lord'^Table, — 
Were  we  to  do  this  with  our  present  views  of  what  constitute 
christian  baptism,  we  should  effectually  veto  the  principles 
which  we  hold  in  common  witli  your  denomination,  viz:  that 
baptism  is  a  prerequisite  to  communion. 

Pedobaptist. — What  reasons  or  evidences  have  you  for  not 
believing  us  baptized,  or  rather  for  not  believing  in  infant  bap- 
tism? 


10 

Baptist. — Before  proceeding  directly  to  answer  this  query,  I 
shal!  make  a  few  preliminary  remarks  on  order. 

"Order,"  my  brother,  "is  heaven's  first  law."  The  whole 
planetary  system  ob.^ys  the  certain,  definite,  and  fixed  laws  of 
its  Creator,  and  this  fact,  in  a  satisfactory  manner,  accounts  for 
thatorrfer  and  harmony  in  their  movements,  so  frequently  ob- 
served by  the  astronomer,  as  they  "wheel  (in  their  orbits)  un- 
shaken through  the  void  immense,"  causing  "all  the  sons  of 
God  to  shout  for  joy."  Now  this  consummate  order  and  har- 
mony is  the  result  of  two  opposite  combined  forces,the  centrifw 
gal  and  centripetal.  Should  we  give  to  cne  of  these  a  control- 
ing  influence,  "planets  and  suns  would  run  lawless  through  the 
sky,"  world  would  be  wrecked  on  world,  disorder,  desohtion 
and  chaos  would  then  ensue.  Without  order,  the  beauties  of 
the  moral  as  well  as  the  physical  "creation  would  be  aniiihi- 
lated,"  the  bands  ot  society  would  be  burst  nsunder,  social  in- 
tercourse would  cease  to  be  conducted  on  the  principles  of  or- 
der and  justice,  anarchy  and  contusion  would  reign  throughout 
society.  Again,  order  in  the  religious  world  is  as  beautiful  and 
essential  as  it  is  in  the  natural  and  moral.  Without  it  here,  the 
religion  of  Jehovnh  would  be  stripped  of  its  pristine  beauty  and 
glory,  and  consequently  of  the  power  it  was  destine:!  to  exert 
over  the  minds  of  men.  •'  There  must  be  some  defect  in  our 
mental  vision,  if  religion  does  not  appear  to  us  most  lovely  and 
beautiful,  drcsjed  and  adorned  as  she  descended  from  heaven." 
Shall  tre  then,  who  are ^7ii/e,  attempt  to  alter  and  improve  the 
robrj  placed  upon  her  by  Infinite  AVisdom? 

Now,  it  is  evident,  to  an  impartial  observer,  that  just  in  pro- 
portion  as  the  Laws  ordained  to  govern,  either  the  physical, 
moral,  or  intellectual  world,  are  abeyod,  in  that  proportion 
does  order  and  harmony  prevail  in  each  of  those  spheres. 

"  Let  all  things  be  done  decently  and  in  order,^'  siiys  Paul; 
and  in  this  way  only,  I  apprehend,  "  wo  shall  honor  God  andtho 
religion  we  profess." 

Permit  me  to  "illustrate  this  sentiment  by  sacred  history." 
"It  was  the  duty  of  the  Jewish  Priests  to  offer  sacrifices  at 
the  temples,  but  it  was  their  duty  to  wash  or  bathe  themselves 
first.  It  was  not  their  duty  to  offer  sacrifices  unwashed; — it 
would  be  sin  to  do  it." 

"It  was  the  duty  of  all  Israel  to  march  in  a  prescribed  order^ 
not  in  any  other  ordcr,nor  in  disorder;  it  would  be  sin  to  do  it." 

"It  was  the  duty  of  Moses  to  erect  the  Tabern?.cle  in  the 
wilderness;  but,  saith  Jehovah,  •according  to  all  I  shall  show 
thee  after  the  pattern  of  the  Tabernacle,  and  the  pattern  of  all 


11 

the  institutions  thereof,  even  so  shall  ye  make  it;* — it  would  be 
sin  to  make  it  otherwise." 

«  All  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel  are  binding  upon  all  men." 
But  it  is  evident  that  the  prescribed  order  in  which  these  in- 
stitutions of  the  gospel  are  commanded  to  be  observed,  (in  the 
commission,)  is  the  order,  in  which  every  man  is  bound  to  ob- 
serve them,  or  else  he  violates  the  Law,  and  consequently  sins. 
Hence  it  becomes  a  question  of  no  ordinary  importance,  what 
is  the  order  of  these  institutions.  This  can  be  easily  ascertained 
by  referring  to  the  commission,  as  given  by  Matthew  and  Mark. 
You  will  find  by  this  commission  that  faith  and  discipleship 
was  first  enjoined,  then  baptism,  &c.  This  order  was  observ- 
ed in  the  practice  of  the  Apostles.  Hence  we  have  "  an  inspi- 
red explanation  of  that  Law."  Indeed,  "  we  possess  in  the 
Gospels,the  Acts  and  the  Epistles— an  accumulation  of  evidence'^ 
bearing  directly  on  this  point,  which  it  would  seem  that  no 
christian,  in  his  right  mind,  could  possibly  reject.  This  is  not 
bold,  unwarranted  assertion.  For  it  will  be  perfectly  obvious 
to  any  one,  who  will  impartially  examine  the  New  Testament, 
that  it  was  the  uniform  practice  of  the  Apostles  to  require  a 
profession  of  fliith  before  baptism.  For  example,  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  it  is  said,  "they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were 
baptized. "(Now  faith  is  a  cordial  reception  of  the  truth,)andit  ap- 
pears, by  the  record, that  the  Apostles  had  ample  evidence  of  their 
belief.  Again,wh3n  the  Eunuch,  asked  forbaptism,*»PhilIip  saidjif 
thou  believest  with  all  thy  heart,  thou  mayest."  This  pro- 
fession, I  think,  we  may  safely  conclude  is  a  fiir  specimen  of 
what  the  Apostles  required  of  all  whom  they  baptized.  Again^ 
it  is  said  that  many  of  the  Corinthians,  believing  (or  giving- 
evidence  ot  belief)  were  baptized.  In  like  manner  the  Phillip, 
pi.in  jailer,  Saul  of  Tarsus,  and  the  Samaritans,  expressed  their 
belief  before  baptism.  So,  in  all  the  other  cases,  it  was  usually 
expressed  or  implied.  Hence  you  perceive,  that  our  main  evi- 
dence, that  faith  is  a  prerequisite  to  baptism,  is  derived  from' 
scripture  facts, — "the  law  and  the  testimony." 

Now,  if  this  evidence  adduced  from  scripture,  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  show  that  Faith  is  an  indispensable  pre-requisite  to 
baptism,  then  the  evidence  produced  from  scripture  to  show  that 
Baptism  is  an  indispensable  pre-requisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 
is  also  deficient.  Hence  it  follows,  as  inevitably  as  any  demon- 
stration in  KucUd,  that  these  two  positions  must  stand  or  fall 
together — both  being  supported  by  the  same  evidence.  And 
since  you  have  admitted  that  the  evidence  adduced  to  prove- 
the  latter   position,  has  shown  that  it  rests  on  a  solid  founda- 


12 

tion,  it  follows  that  the  same  evidence  must  (even  to  your  own 
mind,)  show  the  former  to  rest  on  the  same  foundation.  Now 
if  faith  in  the  subject  be  an  indispensable  pre-requisite  to  bap- 
tism, as  I  believe  it  has  been  abundantly  shown  from  the  Bible, 
then  infant  baptism  in  Apostolical  times  could  not  have  been  a 
child  of  the  same  heavenly  household.  But,  my  friend,  in  your 
reply  to  this,  it  is  presumed  you  will  give  us  your  warrant  for 
infant  baptism. 

Pedobaptist. — Why  truly,  my  friend,  though  you  have  occu- 
pied  some  time,  I  have  listened  with  interest  to  your  remarks 
and  illustrations  on  order,and  I  deem  them  very  appropriate,  as 
they  exemplify  the  importance  of  yielding  implicit  obedience 
to  the  'prescribed  order  of  all  God's  commands.  But  in  your 
answer  to  the  query  I  proposed,  you  have  been  rather  logical, 
still  I  have  been  unable  to  detect  any  sophistry  in  the  argu- 
ment.— It  seems  the  part  of  candor  to  acknowledge  here,  that 
your  answer  has  somewhat  shaken  my  belief,  that  infant  bap- 
tism is  authorised  by  the  great  commission. 

But  as  J  do  not  see  how  the  argument  can  be  completely 
invalidated,  I  shall  advance  it.  Our  Savior  in  his  last  com- 
mand, said  "  Go  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,  etc.  Now 
is  it  not  self  evident  that  infants  are  included  in  the  expres- 
sion "  all  nations"?  and  if  so,  what  better  warrant  can  we  have? 
But  why  do  you  smile? 

Baptist. — Why  really,  my  brother,  I  cannot  help  it.  If  the 
expression  "all  nations"  be  a  good  warrant  for  baptizing  in- 
fants, then  we  have  equally  as  good  for  baptizing  "  impenitent 
adults  and  all  sorts  of  human  beings,"  for  they  are  included  in 
the  expression  "  all  nations." 

"  According  to  this,  the  Catholics  were  right,  m  teaching 
the  Indians  of  South  America  to  say  the  creed  and  the  Lord's 
prayer,  and  baptizing  them  by  hundreds  and  thousands.  But 
read  the  whole  commission, — remember  that  the  word  render, 
ed  '  teach'  is  admitted  by  all  to  mean  '  disciple,' — that  disci- 
pleship  and  faith  are  mentioned  prior  to  baptize,  and  the  infer- 
ence  will  be  very  different.  Look  at  the  practice  of  the  Apos- 
tles, and  see  how  they  understood  the  commission,  and  there 
need  be  no  doubt  about  its  import."  "  Can  any  thing  be  plain- 
er than  that  this  law  of  tiie  commission  authorizes  the  baptism 
of  believers?" 

Pedobaptist. — But  it  is  plain,  my  friend,that"the  directions  of 
Christ  here  refer  only  to  those  who  are  capable  of  believing, 
and  the  language  does  not  forbid  the  baptism  of  infants." 

Baptist, — It    is  true  "  these  directions  command  none  but 


13 

bslievers  to  be  baptized,"  and  we  shall  probably  see  good  rea- 
sons for  this,  if  we  find  room  in  this  tract,  to  examine  tl)e  spir- 
itual nature  of  Christ's  kingdom,  as  well  as  the  import  and 
design  of  baptism.  "  But  further,  the  terms  of  the  commission, 
while  they  enjoin  the  baptism  of  believers,  do,  most  certainly, 
exclude  the  baptism  of  any  but  believers."  Suppose  that  1  have 
fi  farm  I  wish  to  stock,  and  commission  my  agent  to  purchase 
for  me  a  number  of  red  milch  cows.  Now  this  agent,  instead 
of  purchasing  exclusively  the  kind  and  color  of  cows  mentioned 
in  his  commission,  purchases  some  black  cows  and  some 
that  were  not  milch — some  calves,  etc.  I  ask  now,  if  he  does 
not  violate  his  instructions  ?  But  when  I  inquire  of  him  why 
he  purchased  calves,  black  cows,  etc.,  he  replies,  the  color  is 
"  non-essential"  ^.ndi  there  is  no  clause  in  the  commission  that 
interdicts  it.  I  inquire,  is  not  the  color  essential  to 
obedience  ?  Have  you  any  authority  for  doing  thus  ?  He 
replies  none  :  but  adds,  you  did  not  direct  me  not  to  buy 
thom.  Nor  was  it  necess^iry,  I  rejoin.  When  you  received  your 
commission  for  purchasing  cows  of  a  certain  description,  you 
were  as  really  forbidden  to  purchase  cows  of  any  other  descrip- 
tion, on  my  account,  as  if  I  had  said,  in  so  many  words,  buy 
rod  milch  cows  and  do  not  purchase  any  others.  You 
might  as  well  have  purchased  for  me  horses,  and  urged  that 
the  above  words  of  your  commission  do  not  prohibit  it !  In 
doing  as  you  have,  you  have  acted  without  authority  and  against 
my  instructions,  and  you  must  abide  the  consequences.  In  like 
manner,  the  commission  given  by  our  Savior, — "  directs  his 
ministers  to  baptize  believers  and  themonly,"  Mentioning  none 
hut  believers,  it  virtually  excludes  all  others.  To  administer  the 
ordinance  to  any  others,  is  to  act  without  the  authority  of 
Christ,  and  against  his  instructions.  Yea  more,  if  there  were 
another  commission  requiring  infants  to  be  baptized,  it  could 
not  abolish  the  commission  now  under  consideration,  which 
requires  all  men  to  be  baptized  on  believing  the  gospel. 

*'  The  command  of  Jesus  to  every  believer  to  be  baptized,  stands 
engraven  in  irdelible  characters  in  his  commission.  It  cannot 
he  effaced^  and  I  call  on  you  and  all  believers  on  their  allegiance 
to  the  Son  of  God,  to  submit  to  this  ordinance  of  his  kingdom." 
It  seems  to  me,  that  no  believer,  in  good  health,  cnn  urge  any 
thing  like  a  reasonable  excuse  for  neglecting,  or  disobeying  so 
plain  a  command. 

If  any  thing  more  were  wanting  to  satisfy  us  respecting  the 
subjects  of  baptism,we  have  it  in  the  concluding  direction  of  the 
commission,  "  Teaching  them,"  &c.     "The  candidate  is  sup- 

B 


i4 

posed  to  be  old  enough  to  bs  taufjht  the  other  institutions  of 
the  Gospel.  Unconsciousbabesof  course  are  excluded."  Our 
views  wf  this  subject  are  agreeable  to  those  of  many  pious  and 
learned  Pedobaptists. 

Grotious.  "  Christ  pro])eily  rcciuires  teacliin j  the  first  elements  of  christianit}'^  as  pre- 
ceding BAPTISM     whicli  also  %va.s  always  used  in  the  church  previous  to  that  ordinance." 

Jerome,  the  most  learned  of  all  tiie  Latin  Fati.crs,  says  :  "  They  first  teach  all  nations; 
then  WHEN  they  are  taug^ht,  they  baptize  them  in  water,  for  it  c;uvuot  be  that  the  body 
should  recf  :ve  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  unless  the  soul  has  before  received  true  faith." 

Calvin.  "Because  Christ  requires  teaching  before  baptizing,  and  will  have  believer* 
only  admitted  to  baptism,  baptism  doeii  not  seem  to  be  rightly  administered,  e.\cept  faith 
precede." 

Baxter,  speaking  of  thecommission.  "Tliis  is  not  like  some  occasional,  historical  men- 
tion of  baptism,  but  it  is  the  very  commission  of  Clirist  to  his  Apostlos  for  preaching  and 
baptizing;  and  purposely  exprcsseth  tiieir  several  works  in  tlieir  several  pl.ices  andorder. 
Theirfirst  task  is,  by  teaching  to  make  disciples,  which  by  Mark  are  called  believers.  The 
second  work  is  to  baptize  them.  The  third  work  is,  to  teacli  them  all  other  tilings,  which 
are  afterwards  to  be  learned  from  the  school  of  Christ.  To  contemn  this  order,  is  to 
RENOUNCE  ALL  RULES  OF  ORDER;  forwlierecau  we  nxpectto  find  it,  if  not  here?  1  pro- 
fess ray  conscience  is  fully  satisfied,  that  there  is  one  sort  of  fiiitli,  even  saving,  that  must 
go  before  baptism." 

Pedobaptist. — The  evidences  that  you  have  produced,  from 
scripture  and  history,  to  support  heliever^s  haplism,  is  quite 
eatisfactorv, — indeed,  I  am  very  wiUing  to  admit,  that  the 
Apostles  baptized  believers,  and  that  the  commission  enjoined 
it. — But  then,  toe  believe,  that,  as  ihere  is  nothing  in  the  New 
Testament  that  explicitly  prohibits  infant  baptism,  thesilenco 
of  the  scriptures  must  ba  in  favor  of  the  rite.  Wliy  do  not 
your  denomination  practice  it  ? 

Baptist. — Why,  my  friend,  do  you  again  bring  forward  the 
si/ewce  of  the  scriptures  to  prove  infant  baptism?  I  thought, 
really,  that  my  reply  had  anniLilated  this  position  — Have  you 
actually  no  better  evidence  from  Scripture  than  silence  to  prove 
the  lawfulness  of  this  rite  1  How  diiferent  were  the  reasonings 
of  Paul  !  He  proves  that  the  tribe  of  Jiidiih  had  nothing  to 
do  with  Aaron's  priesthood,  from  the  silence  of  Moses  :  "  of 
which  tribe  Moses  spale  nothing  concerning  the  priesthood,** 
**The  New  Testament  doc^s  not  forbid  infant  baptism." 
Is  either  does  it  forbid  the  admission  of  infants  to  the  Lord^s  Sup- 
per,  nor  the  invocation  of  Saints,  nor  the  sprinkling  of  holy 
water,  nor  the  use  of  salt  and  spittle,  nor  the  saying  of  mass 
f  )r  the  repose  of  the  dead,  nor  indeed,  all  the  parapherndia  of 
Popery.  "  But  does  this  silence  prove  that  these  superylitiona 
are  lawful,  and  should  be  observed  ?"  If  so,  '■^  what  a  wonder 
working  power  this  silence  ?>/" 

Again,  the  reason  why  we  do  not  baptize  infants,  is  because 
the  Apostles  baptized  believers,  and  th3re  is  no  evidence  from 
scriptures  that  they  ever  baptized  any  except  believers.  Again, 
should  a  man,    who  did  not  believe  bnpi'ism  u  prerequisite  tc^ 


15 

communion,  ask  me  why  we  admit  7?07ie  to  the  Lord's  Supper 
b'Jt  baptized  persons,  I  should  advisedly,  reply,  because  the 
Apostlea  communed  with  baptized  persons;  and  theid  is  no 
evidence  from  Scripture  that  they  ever  communed  with  any 
who  were  not  baptized.  It  seems  fo  me  that  this  argument 
alone  is  sunicient  to  condemn  infa  it  baptism.  Here  I  take 
my  stand  on  the  very  ground  of  Christ's  commands,  nnd  the 
Apostles'  example;  and,  unless  it  cm  he  shown  from  Scripture 
that  th(!  Apostles  hAT^iizml  without  a  prof ession  of  faith,  or  com- 
i-nunrd  with  unbaptized  persons,  1  must  still  ix'^^avd  fdth  as  a 
prerequis'te  to  baptism  ;  and  baptism  as  a  prerequisite  to  the 
celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  consequently  must  reject 
allbavtism  except  believer  s,  as  unchristian  ;  not  b?ing  author- 
ized by  the  Law  of  Christ,  nor  the  example  of  the  inspired 
Apostles,  wliich  is  a  complete  explanation  of  that  law.  Aiiain, 
it  should  t)3  remembered  that  the  only  evidence  ive  have  from 
Scripture,  ihd  baptism  h  n  pi-erequisite  to  church  meml);.'rship, 
is  the  example  of  the  Apostles  in  the  constitation  of  the  primitive 
rluiiches,*  and  this  is  deemed  sufficient  by  all  denominations. 
No'.v,  that  f  iith  is  a  preirquisite  to  baptism,  v/e  have  not  only 
tiie  testimony  of  Apostolical  example,  but  in  addition  to  this, 
we,  hive  the  express  precepts  of  Jesus  Christ.  '•  Such  bein^!;  the 
fact,  our  assurance  is  doubly  sure  that  wc  are  on  the  side  of 
TRUTH.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  subject  is  so  plain,  that  "  ho 
who  runs  may  read,  and  he  who  reads  may  understand." 

Pedobaptisi. — To  be  honest,  my  friend,  your  illustrations 
have  convinced  me  that  silence  cannot  prove  inf  int  baptism  to 
be  a  divine  requirement,  f:H'  if  it  could,  it  would  aljso  prove,  (as 
j^ou  have  shown,)  that  all  tha  penances  of  the  Romish  church 
are  divine  requirements.  And,  still  farther,  your  arguments  have 
compelled  me  to  abandon,  as  untenable,  the  idea  that  inf  mt  bap- 
tism can  be  found  in  the  commission.  But  the  examples  of  the 
Apostles  I  believe  you  have  admitted  as  good  authority,  and 
they,  you  arc  av/are,  baptized  certain  households,  and  it  is  alto- 
gether probable  that  these  housholds  contained  infant  children. 

Baptist. — ^^ Probably  they  contained  infant  children;  but 
that  is  begging  the  question,  v/hich,  to  avail  you  any  thing, 
must  be  made  certain.  The  burden  of  proof  rests  on  you. 
The  mere  expression,  baptized  hou3ehf)lds,  will  avail  nothing 
till  you  prove  not  only  that  they  might  contain,  but  that  they 
actually  did  contain  infants  •[  and  that  the  infmts  were  ncttinl- 

*  From  Scripliire  we  learn  that  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  and  also  that  at  Coriuth,  were 
composed  oi'BAPTJ/.ED  believe;'.*. — Acts. 

1  \\  hen  householus  a-'c  mentioned  it  must  be  sho';vn  also,  to  avail  any  thing,  that  ali 
the  members  of  the  family  a'e  included  in  scripture  language :  but  "a  mau'sfoes  are  they 
cif  kii  huuachold" — surely  not  infants. 


10 

ly  baptized.  This  I  am  confident  you  will  not  attempt ;  lor 
the  spirit  of  inspiration  has  let\  on  record  facts  concerning 
two  of  these  cases,  which  prove  conclusively  thai  they  contain- 
ed only  those  who  believed. 

Let  us  examine  these  household  baptisms.  It  is  said  respec- 
ting the  jailers'  household,  that  Paul  and  Silas  "spake  unto  him 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house  ;  and  he 
rejoiced,  believing  in  God  M'ithali  his  house." 

D",  McKni^ht,  a  pedobiptist,  remarks:  "The  house  of  the 
jailer,  it  seems,  were  equally  imj)ressed  with  PauVs  sermon  as  the 
jailer  himself  was. " 

Calvin. — "  in  which  the.  grace  of  God  suddenly  *  '"  brought 
the  WHOLF.  FAMILY  to  a  pious  consent." 

Bloomfield.  "It  is  taken  for  granted,  " his  fa?nily  become 
Christians  as  well  as  himself .''^ 

Concerning  the  household  of  Stcphanus,  Paul  writes:  ^^\i  is 
the  first  fruits  of  Achaia,  and  they  have  addicted  themselves  to 
the  ministry  of  the  saints."  On  which  Dr.  JMcKnight  remarks, 
"  The  family  of  Stephanus  seem  all  to  have  been  adults  when 
theyicere  baptized,  as  they  are  said  to  have  devoted  themselves 
to  the  ministry  of  the  saints." 

With  reference  to  tiie  case  of  Lvdia,  it  appears  she  was  a 
stranger  from  Thyatira,  residing  in  Phillippi,  nearly  three  hun- 
dred miles,  for  the  purposes  of  trade.  The  account  speaks  nei- 
fher  of  husband  nor  ctiildren,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  she 
.nad  either.  "  iVobably  herhousehold  was  composed  of  assist- 
ants in  her  business,  who,  following  her  example,  believed,  and 
were  baptized.  For  we  are  informed,  that  when  Paul  and  Silas 
left  the  city,  they  entered  into  the  house  of  Lydia  and  saw  and 
comforted  the  brethren,'*^ 

Again  :  when  Paul  preached  in  Corinth,  Crispus  with  all  his 
house  believed  in  the  Lord.  In  all  these  cases  there  is  no  men- 
tion made  of  any  one  being  baptized  on  another's  fiith. 

Thus  we  find  in  the  New  Testament  baptized  households  jiist 
as  often  as  we  find  believing  households.  "As  we  happen  to 
belong  to  a  household,"  all  of  which,  including  twelve  cliildren, 
have  been  baptized  on  a  profession  ol"  t!»eir  own  faith,  the 
inference,  5ccf/«5e  that  the  Apostles  baptized  households,  they 
^'probably  baptized  infants,  cannot  be  expected  to  strike  our  mind 
as  irresistible  ;"  especially  as  other  such  instances  are  not  un- 
frequent.  Within  a  ri'cent  ixoriod  the  missionaries  in  liurmah 
speak  of  baptizing  eight  entire  inouseholds  of  believers.  Can 
you  now,  my  friend,  with  such  evidences  before  you,  find  au- 
thority  for  infant  baptism  in  the  households  mentioned? 


17 

Pedohaptist. — Indeed,  from  the  examination  of  the  liousehold 
baptisms  recorded  in  the  Nev/  Testament,  it  seems  the  part  of 
candor  to  concede  that  they  furnish  no  evidence  to  support  in- 
fant baptism,  but  very  much  believer's  baptism.  NoWjalthough 
these  household  baptisms  seem  to  take  part  against  me,  still  1  am 
very  positive  we  have  authority  for  infant  baptism  in  the  Abra- 
haraic  covenant.  Baptism  has  now  taken  the  place  of  circum- 
cision, and  children  under  that  covenant  you  know  were  cir- 
cumcised, hence  they  should  be  baptized  under  the  gospel  dis- 
pensation. 

Baptist. — The  covenant  made  with  Abraham  may  be  found 
iuGen.  xvii:   1 — 14.     Please  turn  to  it. 

Now,  my  friend,  if  this  is  the  very  covenant  God  has  made 
with  every  christian  parent,  then  he  is  under  obligations  to 
perform  the  rite  of  circumcision  on  every  man  child  in  his 
house,  and  that  too  on  the  eighth  day,  neither  before  nor  after 
that  period. 

'*  But  it  is  said  baptism  has  come  in  the  place  of  circumcision. 
You  assert  it,  and  you  must  prove  it.  If  we  are  yet  under  the 
covenant  of  circumcision,  only  baptism  having  taken  place  of 
the  ancient  rite,  why  has  not  the  Bible  informed  us  of  the  fact? 
NVhen  some,  who  had  embraced  the  religion  of  Jesus,  (Acts  v.) 
insisted  that  the  christian  converts  should  be  circumcised,  why 
did  not  the  great  council  oi  the  Apostles  and  Eiders,  who  deci- 
ded that  circu'ncision  was  abolished,  satisfy  those  who  were 
jealous  of  the  law,  by  reminding  them  that  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants was  to  be  practised  as  a  substitute  £o\'  circumcision?" 

But  I  presume  you  are  aware  that  only  male  children  and 
adults  were  circumcised.  Now,  if  baptism  has  taken  the  room 
of  circumcision,  it  follows  that  none  save  males  are  eligible  to 
receive  this  rite. 

And  when  Paul  wrote  to  (he  Galatians,  in  opposition  to  the 
Judaizing  teachers,  who  held  to  circumcision,  Mhy  do  we  find  in 
his  Epistle  not  a  single  hint  of  the  same  fact?  Could  the  spirit  of 
inspiration  have  suliered  such  an  opportunity  to  pass  without 
intorming  the  church  that  infant  baptism  had  taken  the  place 
of  circumcision?  Had  this  been  done,  it  would  have  forever 
settled  the  question  and  ended  all  further  dispute. 

Ag::in  :  on  another  occasion,  (Acts  xxi.  17 — 22,)  when  Paul 
made  his  last  visit  to  Jerusalem,  he  Mcnt  in  unto  James,  all  the 
Elders  being  present,  and  then  gave  an  account  of  the  wonders 
God  had  wrought  by  his  ministry  among  the  Gentiles.  And 
hearing  this  they  glorified  the  Lord.  One  of  them,  imm.ediate- 
ly  appealing  to  his  knowledge  of  the"  thousands  of  Jews  which 

c 


18 

bsUeveandare  zealous  of  the  law,"  says,  that  "they  are  in- 
formed by  thee,  that  thou  teachcst  ail  the  Jews  which  are  among 
the  Guntiles  to  forsake  Moses,  saying  they  ought  not  circimi- 
else  their  children."  Paul  is  here  charged  wiih  teaching  his 
Jowish  converts  to  neglect  circimicision.  Now  had  he  taught 
them  to  baptize  tlip.ir  children,  as  a  siibstitide,  was  he  not  im- 
periously called  upon  to  declare  it  in  self-defence.  Init  the 
utter  sihmce  of  the  Aposll;3,  when  thus  presoijd  by  his  Jewish 
brethren. is  irresistibhi  evidence  to  my  mind  that  infant  haptism 
at  that  time  was  unhnown. 

Again,  circumcision  was  administered  to  adulis  without  re- 
quirin-^  faith  or  rej)entance  as  a  quaiihciition.  But  there  is  no 
instance  left  on  record  of  any  (except  christians)  bjiiig  admitt>:'l 
to  baptist:;,  without  giving  evidence  of  possessing  both.  As  I 
have  already  said  more  on  this  head  than  I  intended,  I  shail 
only  add  that  the  most  eminent  biblical  scholars  oftheag(  i^^jice 
with  Professor  Stuait,  in  the  opinion  that  ^'tlie  Alrahamic  coven- 
ant furnishes  no  ground  for   infant  bapiis7n.'"* 

Pedobaptist. — And  now,  my  friend,  i  must  acknowledge  my 
disappointment  in  not  finding  any  warrant  in  tlie  Abraii<imic 
covenant  for  infant  b.iptism.  From  the  exaniination  arsd  re- 
marks made,  1  feel  myself  compelled  to  abandon  it  in  despair, 
and  coincide  with  Professor  Stuart's  views.  But  though  thij 
covenant  furnishes  no  authority  for  the  rite,  still  "in  the  chiia. 
tian  church  tVom  its  earliest  ages,  and  v/e  think  from  the  Apos- 
tles' time,  it  has  been  vhe  custom  to  baptize  the  infant  chikli'en 
of  professing  christians.  In  proof  of  this,  I  might  cite  a  pas- 
sage from  Justin  Mart}- r*s  apology,  aiul  another  from  Irena;us, 
<SoC.  I  pr'.'sume  you  are  acquainted  with  the  passacres;  ifso,! 
should  like  to  hear  what  you  have  to  say  on  them. 

Baptist. — Now  I  am  quite  ready  to  grant,  thi;t  if  infant  bap- 
tism can,  by  authentic  records,  be  traced  back  to  the  ApG.-ta;s' 
time,  you  have  good  authority  for  the  practice  of  it.  But  lam 
sure  this  cannot  be  d(me.  liadyou  either  precept  or  example 
for  it  in  the  New  Testament,  it  would  be  established 
beyond  a  dtjubt.  But  that  these  are  wanting,  is  conceded  by 
someof  the  ablest  Pedobaptist  writers,  many  of  whomad.-nit, 
with  Dr.  Woods,  that  "we  have  no  express  |»recept  cr  ixim- 
ple  for  infant  baptism  in  all  of  our  sacred  wriiings."  "i-om- 
mands,  or  plain  and  certain  examples  in  the  New  Testament 
relative  to  it,"(infint  baptism, )says  Professor  Stuart,  "  i  do  not 
find."  Bishop  Burnet  stiys,  "there  is  no  express  precept  or 
rule  given  in  the  New  T<istament  lor  the  baptism  of  infmis.'" 

*  Maauficript  Lectures,  GaL  3. 


19 

Martin  Luther  says,  "/if  cannot  he  proved  hy  the  sacred  scrips 
lures,  that  infant  baptism  was  instituted  hy  Christ,  or  hrgun  hy  the 
Jirst  christians  after  the  Apostles.  ^^  Neander  says,  "  That  Christ 
did  not  establish  infant  baptism,  is  certain,'^  Similar  admissions 
are  made  by  Bishops  Prideaux,  Sanderson,  Stillingfleet,  by  Lim- 
borch,  Erasmus,  Witsius,  and  the  most  celebrated  writers  of 
England  and  the  continent. 

As  we  intend  to  make  some  quotations,  from  the  German  au- 
thors, in  regard  lo  infant  baptism,  justice  to  them  seems  to  de- 
mand that  we  should  here  state,  "  that  while  they  in  general 
deny,  that  infant  baptism  was  introduced  by  Christ  or  by  his 
apostles,  they  still  justify  the  practice  on  the  ground  of  analogy 
or  expediency.  So  far,  however,  from  being  agreed  in  wh.\t 
the  true  reason  for  this  practice  consists,  they  differ  so  widely 
as  mutually  to  destroy  each  others  foundation."  As  we  have 
not  room  here  to  introduce  their  views  we  would  only  remark, 
that  "  with  the  various  theories  of  infant  baptism,  not  resting 
on  apostohcal  practice,  w^e  have,  at  present,  nothing  to  do.  Our 
single  object,  in  introducing  the  testimony  of  these  critics  is,  to 
prove  this  one  historical  fact,  that  infant  baptism  was  not  prac 
tised  by  the  apostles."  We  shall  select  only  a  few  of  the  multi- 
tude  of  examples,  that  might  be  adduced. 

"  We  will  proceed  to  our  viurpose,"  by  introducing^  the  testimony  of  tha  great 
SchleiermHcher,  who,  in  his  Christian  Theologj-,  p.  383,  '  pungeutly,  if  not  indignantly,  re- 
marks :'  "All  traces  of  infant  baptism,  which  one  will  find  in  the  New  Testament,  must 
FIRST  BE  PUT  INTO  IT."  He  Calls  it  "  a  departure  from  the  original  institution,  and  yet  he 
defends  it  on  other  grounds."  He  furthermore  suys.  "  Our  symbolical  books  (i.  e.  the 
■creeds)  treat  of  it  without  regard  to  history,  and  attempt  to  justify  it  in  itself;  but  the 
manner  in  which  they  do  it,  is  unsatisfactory,  and  upon  grounds  that  essentially  destroy 
each  other." 

Prof.  Hiihn's  Theology,  p.  556:  "  According  to  its  true  original  design,  it  can  be  given 
only  to  ADULTS,  who  are  capable  of  true  knowledge,  repentance  and  faith.  Neither  in  the 
Scriptures,  nor  during  the  first  hundred  and  fifty  years,  is  a  sure  example  of  infant  bap- 
tism to  be  found;  an  owe  must  concede  ;  that  the  numerous  opposfrs  of  it  cannot 
BE  contradicted  on  GOSPEL  GROUND."  Few  men  stand  so  high  in  public  estimation  for 
piety,  sense  and  learning,  as  Prof.  Hahn,  of  Rreslau.  In  another  passage,  he  adds  :  "  It 
arose  from  false  views  of  original  sin,  and  of  the  magical  jjower  of  consecrated  water." 

Winer's  Manuscript  Lectures:  "  Originally  onl3-  adults  were  baptized  ;  but,  at  the  end 
of  the  second  century,  in  Africa,  and  in  the  third  century  generally,  infant  baptism  was  ia- 
troduced  ;  and  in  the  fourth  century,  it  was  theologically  maintained  by  Augustnie."' 

Corrodi.  "  At  the  time  of  Christ  and  his  disciples,  only  adults  were  baptized  ;  there- 
fore, among  christians  at  the  present  day,  not  children,  but  adults,  who  are  capable  of  pro- 
fessing Christianity,  ought  to  be  baptized." 

Prof.  Lange,  in  his  recent  work  on  Infant  Baptism  observes:  "  All  attempts  te  make  out 
infant  baptism,  from  the  New  Testament,  fail.  It  is  totally  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  the 
apostolical  age,  and  to  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  New  Testament." 

Matthies,  one  of  the  latest  writers  on  baptism,  says  :  "  In  the  first  two  centuries,  no  docu- 
ments are  found,  which  clearly  sliow  the  existence  of  infant  baptism  at  that  time." 

Dressier.  "  In  the  New  Testament,  it  is  no  where  mentioned,  that  the  children  of  Chris- 
tian parents  were  baptized;  the  consecration  by  baptism,  always  relates  to  those  only 
whose  faith  was  changed,  and  who  were  made  acquainted  with  Christ  and  became  his  dis- 
ciples." 

Von  Coin.  "Exorcism  was  practiced  in  early  times  only  vith  demoniacs;  then  it  be- 
came a  catechetical  preparation  ;  and,  after  INFANT  baptism  was  introduced,  it  was  a 
part  of  the  baptismal  rite." 


20 

Hose's  Theology :  "Baptism  obligates  a  man  to  a  Cliiistiaa  life  ;  but  how  can  one  who 
is  unconscious,  ol)ligate  'liinself  to  any  tiling  V 

Ilutterus  Hediviviis.  "The  imputation  of  the  parent's  faith  to  their  children,  must  be 
laul  aside  as  an  opus  operatu.m'  (i.  e.  a  more  form). 

liaiuiigartfu  Criisius,  Hist,  of  Theology:  "  lnf;;nt  baptism  can  be  supported  neither  by  a 
distinct  apostolical  tradition,  nor  apostolical  praelico," 

Bretsclinjidcjr,  in  his  Theology,  observes  :  "  llhoiuhard,  Morns  and  Doderlein,  say,  in- 
fant baptism  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Bible."  We  need  say  nothing  of  the  literary  char- 
acter of  these  three  great  men. 

KaiaersBib.  Thftolog-y.  "  Infant  baptism  was  not  an  original  institution  of  Christiansty. 
Wiien  ,  lis  said  of  Lydia,  that  she  was  baptized  with  her  Whole  house,  it  evidently  meairs 
miljr  those  who  werccapableof  jt,  orwho  believed.  In  Acts^tJ :  8,  it  is  said,  that  the  bap- 
tized liouso!)old  had  bklieved.  The  first  traccsof  inf  iiit  baptism  arc  in  the  second  century." 

Prof.  Lindner  of  Lcipsic,  on  the  Supper,  says  :  "Cliristian  baptism  can  be  given  only  to 
ndults,  not  to  infant".  The  Holy  Spirit,  wliich  is  given  only  to  bolievers,  was  a  pierequis- 
ite  to  baptism." 

Gor.enins,  being  informed,  in  conversation,  that  the  Baptists  of  America  reject  infant 
baptism,  and  baptize  only  aduUs,  on  profession  of  faith,  replied:  "  that  is  perfectly  rijjht, 
that  is  according  to  the  Bible." 

Nov/  it  should  h?,  remembered  here,  that  these  arc  some  of 
the  most  eminent  Pcdobaptist  theologians,  and  lh;it  their  testi- 
monies militate  against  thtir  own  practice.  What,  I  would 
ask,  but  a  deep  conviction  of  thuth  would  have  induced  tjiem 
to  make  these  concessions  ?  'These  admissions  from  you  o\vn 
writers  I  presume  you  will  admit  as  n;ood  evidence,  that  infant 
baptism  had  no  existence  in  Apostolical  times.  Here  I  might 
rest  the  whole  ar^^umeiit;  for  if  it  cannot  be  proved  that  Christ 
instituted  it,  or  that  the  Apostles  practised  it,  then  those  Vvho 
practice  it,  do  it  v/ithout  any  scripture  authority,  nnd  of  course 
they  jnitst  abav.don  the  fundamental  principle  of  every  Pro- 
tectant, that  the  Bible  alone  is  our  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

But  I  proceed  to  notice  the  case  of  Justin  Martyr,  v;ho, 
speaking  of  many  of  the  aged  members  of  the  church,  "  some 
eixty,  some  seventy  years  old,"  says,  they  "were  made  disciples 
•to  Christ  from  their  infancy." 

"  It  is  worthy  of  note  here,  that  the  Greek  verb  employed  is  the 
same  as  that  rendered  teach  [Ematheteusan]  in  the  commission." 
Matthies,  commenting  on  this  passage,  .says,  "  these  words 
mean  simply,  that  fro3i  their  childhood  they  were  ly- 
6TRUCTED  IN  RELIGION."  For,  in  anothor  place,  speaking  of 
the  order  and  manner  of  baptism,  Jaatin  3Iartyr  says,  "  that 
only  those  who  believed  what  they  wore  taught  were  baptized." 
From  which  it  appears,  that  in  Justin's  view,  "baptism  was  to 
be  given  subsequent  to  faith." 

Starck  says,-  "The  defenders  of  infant  baptism  attempt  to 
prove  it  from  Justin  IMartyr  and  Ircnasus,  but  neither  of  than 
says  what  is  atirihutcdto  him,^' 

Neandcr,  Winer,  Rheinhard  and  Munschcr,  Hahn,Lange,  and 
nearly  all  the  German  critics,  are  directly  opposed  to  the  Pcdo- 
baptist view  of  this  passage.  ,  ,v^" 


21 

Baumgarten  Crusius,  speaking  of  '•'  The  celebrated  passage 
in  IrensBUS,""  sa3's,  it  '•  is  not  lo  be  applied  to  infard  baptism,  for 
the  phrase  renascuntur,  &;c.  evidently  means  the  participation 
of  all  in  his  divine  and  holy  nature,  in  which  he  became  a  sub- 
stitute for  all." 

Winer.  "Tertullian  is  the  first  that  mentions  infant  baptism* 
IrencBus  does  not  mention  it  as  has  been  supposed." 

"SoRossler,   M unscher,  Von  Coln,"&c. 

"Hence  it  appears,  that  Tertullian,  about  A.  D.  201,  is  the 
Tiery  first  writer,  christian  cr  pagan,  w  ho  mentions  infant  bap- 
tism, and  he  opposed  it, — "  a  proof,"  says  Neander,  "  that  it  was 
not  pet  customary  to  regard  this  as  an  Apostolic  insiiiuiio7i;  for 
had  it  been  so,  he  would  hardly  have  ventured  to  oppose  it  so 
warmly*"  Again,  Neander  says  :  '-Tertuihan  declared  agaii^st 
infant  baptism, wliich  at  that  time  was  certainly  not  a  generally 
prevaiUng  practice,  *  *  *  for  his  assertions  render  in  the 
highest  degree  probable,  it  had  just  begun  to  spread,  and  was 
therefore  regarded  by   many  as  an    innovation." 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  here,  that  Dr.  Neander,  of  Berlin, 
Prussia,  is  a  "mighty  prince"  am.ing  the  most  eminent  schol- 
ars an  I  critical  theologians  of  Germany,  As  an  ecclesiasiical 
historian  lie  stands  unrivalled.  The  great  body  of  living  Ger- 
man critics,  are  united  wilii  him  in  this  view  of  the  subject. 

Now,  if  it  be  a  fict.  as  I  have  shown,  by  a  reference  to  llie 
te-itimony  of  some  of  the  most  eminent  biblical  philologists^ 
that  infant  baptism  had  no  existetice  in  the  Apostolic  age,  it 
matters  not  in  what  other  age  it  may  be  found,  it  can  have  no 
claims  upon  our  observance,  so  long  as  the  Bible  alone  is  our 
rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

Pedohaptist. — From  the  testimonies  adduced,  it  appears 
that  infant  baptism  was  not  practised,  until  about  the  close  of 
the  second  century.  Bat,  then  what  do  you  do  with  the  testi- 
mony of  Orige.i.  (who  flourished  not  far  from  the  year  A.  D. 
220,)  and  Aug'stine,  (about  A.  D.  400;)  they  testify  to  an 
Ap:)stolical  tradition  for  infant  baptism. 

Baptist, — In  regard  to  the  former,  Neander  says,  "His  words 
in  that  age,  cannot  have  much  weiglit ;  for  whatever  was  re- 
garded as  important,  was  alleged  to  be  from  the  apostles.  Be- 
sides, man}'  walls  of  partition  intervened  between  this  age  and 
that  of  the  apostles  to  intercept  the  view." 

Augustine,  who  lived  in  a  more  remote  age  from  the  apostles, 
s  lys,  "  Thjit  infant  baptism  is  believedto  be  established,  not  with- 
out  apostolical  aulhority."  It  appears  that  he  was  more  deeply 
engaged  in  controversy,   than  any  other  man  in  the  ancient 


22 

church,  and  that  what  he  says,  he  "  states  rather  as  a  matter 
of  belief  than  as  an  ascertained  fact."  Hence  we  conclude  that 
he  inferred  his  facts,  and  is  therefore  not  a  historical  witness. 
According  to  Mosheim,  he  exposed  himself  to  the  charge  of 
"  hastily  throwing  upon  paper  thoughts,  which  he  had  not  him- 
self duly  considered."  "  What  he  said  of  infant  baptism  he 
might  have  said  equally  as  well  of  infant  communion  if  he  had 
been  speaking  of  that  subject." 

Now  we  learn  from  history  that  Augustine  himself,  though 
he  had  a  pious  mother,  was  not  baptized  till  he  was  33  years  of 
age.  Nor  was  Patricius  his  father,  nor  Ambrose  who  was  the 
means  of  his  conversion,  baptized  till  adult  age. 

Pedoba])tist. — It  would  seem,  from  your  remarks,  that  there  is 
no  confidence  to  be  placed  in  the  testimonies  of  Origen  and 
Augustine.  But  then  you  know  that  pious  parents  feel,  that  it 
is  a  duty  that  they  owe  to  their  Maker,  to  consecrate  their  chil- 
dren to  God  by  baptism. 

Baptist. — The  views  which  Pedobaptists  entertain  on  this 
subject,  are,  in  all  probability,  the  legitimate  offspring  of  edu- 
cation, as  it  is  acknowledged  that  the  Bible  is  silent  on  the 
subject.  Still  the  feelings  that  induce  pious  parents  to  present 
their  children  for  baptism,  are,  often,  deserving  of  great  respect ; 
and  I  have  no  doubt  thoy  are  sincere  in  the  belief,  that  they  ara 
doing  their  duty.  But  if  feelings  are  to  be  our  criterion  of  what 
is  duty,  then  our  puritan  fathers,  (when  they  believed  that  they 
were  responsible,  for  the  correctness  of  the  religious  belief  of 
their  fellow  men,)  were  doing  their  duty,  and  of  course  right  in 
whipping,  Jiningy  imprisoning,  and  banishing  the  Baptists,  and  in 
hanging  the  Quakers,  because  they  were  prompted  to  these  acts, 
by  feelings  deserving'of  great  respect,  viz.  a  desire  to  preserve 
the  church  free  from  heresy,  and  promote  its  purity.  Then,  ev- 
ery voluntary  act  of  man  is  right,  that  is  prompted  by  feelings 
and  consequently  nothing  wTong,-— a  position  too  absurd  to  be 
admitted  for  a  moment.  Men  must  not  set  up  their  feelings  as 
a  standard,  and  then  attempt  to  bend  the  word  of  God  to  cor- 
respond with  them.  Our  first  duty  is,  to  ascertain  the  will  of 
God,  (as  revealed  to  us  in  the  scriptures,)  and  then  to  do  it. 

Pedobaptist. — But  you  do  not  believe  then  in  infant  dediea^ 
tion? 

Baptist, — Oh  yes  I  do,  let  thei)arent  take  the  child  into  his 
closet,  and  there,  in  solemn  fervent  prayer,  dedicate  him  to  God, 
let  this  be  done  not  unfrequently,  and  that  too,  when  the  child 
is  old  enough  to  understand,  and  accompany  it  with  affection- 
ate religious  instruction,  and  thus  *<  train  up  the  child  in"  "  tbo 


2^ 

nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord."  But  do  not  perform  an? 
UDdutliorizod  ceremony  upon  the  child,  and  then  teach  him,  that 
this  is  an  ordinance  of  divine  appointment.  But  suppose  we 
were  to  admit  the  arguments,  urged  to  sustain  infant  baptism,, 
as  valid,*  (and  Pedobaptists  do  practicaliy  admit  them,)  wo 
fihould  open  a  door  that  would  not  only  admit  all  the  claims  of 
Episcopacy,  but  even  all  the  mummeries  of  Papacy.  And  the 
moment  we  embrace  these,  we  reject  the  authcjrity  of  the  Bi- 
ble, and  of  course  launch  out  into  the  wide,  deep  abyss  of  infi- 
delity, and  attempt,  with  our  frail  bark,  to  navigate  an  unknown 
sea,  amid  the  thickest  fog,  without  even  a  rudder,  chart,  or  com^. 
pass  for  our  guide. 

Pedohapiist. — You  seem  to  regard  inftmt  baptism  as  a  depar- 
ture trom  the  Bible,  and  because  there  is  no  express  warrant  for 
it,  conclude  it  ought  not  to  be  practised.  JSow  if  nothing  be 
duty  from  the  Blblj,  without  an  express  command,  we  v/oulJ. 
ask,   where  is  your  command  for  family  prayer? 

Baptist. — Family  prayer  is  a  moral  duty,  and  one  that  does 
not  contravene  any  other  moral  duty.  It  is  clearly  a  duty, 
"from  the  express  precepts,  which  cannot  be  obeyed  fully  with- 
out its  performance."  *'  Husbands  and  wives  are  comm.anded 
to  lice  iogeihsr,  as  heirs  of  the  grace  of  life."  "  And  this  implies 
the  duty  of  mutual  prayer.  They  are  commanded  to  bring  up 
their  children,  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord,  to 
train  themup  in  the  way  they  should  go, — and  this  involves  the 
duty  of  domestic  prayer."  Hence  it  is  not  apposite  for  you  to 
ask,  where  is  your  explicit  command  for  family  prayer?  Again 
it  is  evident,  that  you  have  entirely  overlooked  the  distinction 
between  positive  institutions  and  moral  duties .  These  last,  "  such 
as  repentance,  faith,  justice,  benevolence,  praise,  prayer,  may  bo 
deduced  from  the  nature  and  fitness  of  things,"  but  we  are  com- 
manded to  pray  without  ceasing.  ''The  spirit  of  prayer  is  the 
prime  element  of  the  Christian's  life," — 

"  The  christian's  vital  breath, 
The  christian's  native  air." 

♦*It  is  designed  and  adapted,  to  sanctify  all  the  relations  [of  lifej 
in  which  we  stand." 

We  do  not  believe  that  positive  institutions  can  with  proprL- 
ety  be  inferred  "  from  the  nature  and  fitness   of  things;"  but 

*  Vi-  trmga  has  well  said  :  "  If  it  he  once  granted  to  the  Doctors  of  the  Romish  commun- 
ion, that  the  order  and  worship  of  the  Gospel  church,  are  conformable  to  those  of  the  Jewish, 
economy,  (to  which  the  Papists  always  look  for  the  chief  scpport  of  the^h 
fcoMEii.ous  ERRORS,)  they  will  plausibly  defend  the  whole  of  their  ecclesiastical  polity^'*' 


24 

give  us  a  logical  inference  for  infant  baptism,  drawn  from  ex- 
piess  teaching,  and  we  will  admit  its  force. 

Pedobaptist. — I  must  acknowledge,  my  friend,  that  I  know  of 
no  express  teaching  in  the  Bible,  from  which  we  can  reasonably 
infer  infant  baptism.  Before  this  conversation  I  thought  difTer- 
ently,  but  where  is  your  explicit  warrant  for  observing  the 
Lord's  day  as  the  Christian  Sabbath  ? 

Baptist. — My  dear  brother,  for  the  observance  of  this  we 
have  apostolical  precedent.  Give  us  such  a  warrant  for  infant 
baptism,  and  we  >vill  acknowledge,  that  you  have  good  author, 
ity  for  practising  it. 

Pedobaptist. — But  admitting,  you  have  apostolical  precedent 
for  keeping  the  Lord's  day.  Where,  we  would  like  to  know  is 
your  explicit  command  for  female  communion  ? 

Baptist. — You  might  with  equal  propriety  *  demand  an  ex- 
plicit warrant  for  female  faith  and  regeneration,  because  it  is 
said,'  "  He  that  beiieveth  shall  be  saved  ;"  and,  "  Except  a  man 
be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God."  "  The 
terms  used  are  generic,  as  well  in  reference  to  communion,  as 
to  faith  and  repentance."  But  it  is  clear  from  various  passages 
in  the  New  Testament  that  women  did  partake  of  the  com- 
munion.* Can  you  find  in  the  New  Testament,  as  satisfac- 
tory evidence  in  favor  of  infant  baptism?  <  I  will  only  add, 
we  do  not  reject  the  baptism  of  infants,  merely  because  there  ia 
*' no  express  divine  precept  requiring  it;"  but,  because  there 
is  neither  command,  nor  example,  nor  fair  inference,  to  be 
found  in  its  favor  in  a  single  passage  in  the  Bible.' 

Pedobaptist. — I  do  not  now  recollect  that  the  word  child  is 
spoken  of.  in  connexion  with  baptism,  in  the  New  Testament, 
Init  as  it  is  thought  indirectli/  to  be  sanctioned  by  some  passages 
in  the  New  Testament.  1  should  like  to  know  what  }  ou  think 
of  them,  viz:  Matt,  xix  :  13  14,  and  the  parallel  passages  as 
Mark  x  :  13 — 16,  and  Luke  xviii :  15,  16.  "  Then  were  brought 
unto  him  little  children,  that  he  should  put  his  hands  on  them^ 
and  pray  :  and  the  disciples    rebuked    them.     But  Jesus  said, 

^  la  1st  Cor."ll  chap,  from  the  1st  to  the  IStli  verses,  the  Greek  "  word  aner,  man,  occurs 
14  times  and  the  word  GUNE,  woman  occurs  16  times.  After  speaking  of  the  man  and  the 
woman  as  memhcrs  of  the  church  ;  and  i)ointin^  out  their  relative  duties,  the  apostle  usea 
Ibo,  word  Tis  v.  IC,  of  both  genders,  referring  to  both  aner  and  gune  ;  and  their  uses  iha 
pronouns  YE  and  you  addressing  both  genders.  As  the  pronoun  stands  for  the  noun,  tio 
YOD  represent  both  man  and  woman,  its  antecedents.  As  often  says  the  ai>ostle  as  yf,  men 
and  women  of  whom  I  have  been  speaking,  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup  (in  the  mar- 
gin)   "snow    Yf",    (MEN  A.ND  women)    FORTH    THE    L()«d'S  DEATH    TII.L  HE  COM  ES."       HcrO 

then  is  an  express  precept  for  female  communion.  Now  for  an  express  precedent.  On 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  it  is  said  they  continued  steadfastly  in  fellowship,  and  in  breaking 
tread.  It  is  evident  that  the  pronoun  liiey  includes  the  120spoken  of  in  thepreviout 
ciiuipter  among  whom  were  the  women  and  Mary  the  luulher  Jesus,  a«  well  as  the  3900,  but 
^noufh.     (This  uoto  j«  abrigodfrom  A.  CanpboU) 


25 

suffer  little  children,  and  forbid  them  not,  to  come  unto  mc  ,' 
for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  And  he  laid  his  hands 
on  them"  &c. 

Baptist. — This  passage  makes  no  distinction  between  the  in- 
fants of  believers,  or  those  of  unbelievers,  if  it  favors  the  baptism 
of  the  former,  then  it  must  that  of  the  latter;  but  it  is  evident, 
that  it  has  no  allusion  to  baptism,  and  "  Jesus"  you  know  '•  baptiz- 
ed not."  And  ag;iin  it  cannot  be  proved  that  the  children  re- 
ferred to  were  infants.  In  Mark  5  :  39,  the  same  word  is  used 
to  designate  a  child  12  years  old.  It  is  distinctly  said  what 
they  were  brought  to  him  for,  and  what  ceremony  he  perform, 
ed.  The  English  edition  of  the  Polyglott  Testament,  (New 
York,  1832,)  gives  the  true  sense.  ''  Of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,"  ihat  is,  persons  resembling  children  in  disposition  ; 
having  their  innocence,  simpUcity,  humility,  teachableness. 

See  Barnes  in  his  note  on  the  place,  so  Kuinoel,  Rosenmuel- 
Icr,  and  Bloomfield. 

Pedohaptist, — Your  answer  is  very  satisfactory,  but  then 
how  do  you  explain  the  passage  1  Cor.  7:  14.  "The  unbe- 
lieving husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife  ;  and  the  unbelieving 
wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband  else  were  your  ch.ldren  un- 
clean, but  now  are  they  holy." 

Baptist. — It  is  evident  that  this  passage  has  no  allusion  to 
the  subject  of  baptism.  It  is  plain,  that  the  unbelieving  hus- 
band cannot  be  so  sanctified  by  the  pious  wife,  as  to  render  him 
an  eligible  subject  for  baptism  without  ftiith.  The  meaning  of 
the  apostle,  is  thus  stated  by  the  Rev.  John  L,  Dagg,  in  a  note 
to  Pengilly's  Guitle  to  Baptism,  as  published  by  the  Baptist 
General  Tract  Society.  "The  unbolieving  husband  is  not  un- 
clean, so  that  his  wife  may  not  lawfully  dwell  with  him  ;  the 
unbelieving  wife  is  not  unclean,  so  that  her  husband  may  not 
lawfully  dwell  with  her.  If  they  are  unclean,  then  your  chil- 
dren are  unclean,  and  not  one  pai^jnt  in  the  whole  church  must 
dwell  with  or  touch  his  children  until  God  should  convert  them." 
"  If  this  interpretation  is  correct,  this  verse  is  a  decided  proof 
that  infont  baptism  did  not  exist  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles." 
See  Barnes. 

Pedohaptist. — There  is  one  more  passage,  that  I  have  seen 
brought  forward  to  prove  infant  baptism  ;  should  like  to  heaF 
your  opinion  of  that,  (Acts  2:  39.)  "  For  the  promise  is  to 
you,  and  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,"  etc. 

Baptist, — If  this  promise  is  made  to  believing  parents  uncon- 
ditionally, then  their  children  are  included  in  i)\G promise,  wheth- 
er baptized  or  not,  whether  they  be  the    children  of  believing 


26 

Baptists  or  Pedobaptists.  But  it  is  evident  that  this  promise 
refers  not  to  the  cove!?ant  of  Abraham  but  to  the  promise  re- 
corded in  Joel  2  :  2S.     (See  Barns  and  Bloomfield). 

Pcdobaptist. — Why  are  the  Baptists  so  opposed  to  infant 
baptism,  surely  it  can  do  the  children  no  harm,  if  it  does  them 
DO  good. 

Baptist. — If  infant  sprinkling  was  practised,  confessedly  as  a 
mere  human  ceremony,  for  civil  or  domestic  purposes,  it  might 
be,  for  aught  I  know,  perfectly  innocent.  But  to  baptize  (sprin- 
kle)  an  infant  in  the  name  of  God,  "  implies  that  it  is  done  by 
his  command,  and  under  his  authority."  But  it  is  acknowl- 
edged  by  Pedobaptist  ministers  themselves  that  Christ  did  not 
command  it,  nor  the  Apostles  practise  it.  Hence  it  follows 
that  those  who  practise  it  do  it,  without  any  authority  from 
the  Bible.  And  again  it  follows,  that  if  there  is  no  authority 
for  it  in  the  Bible,  it  cannot  be  a  positive  L;iw  of  Christ,  and 
whoever  substitutes  it  for  the  positive  law  of  believers  baptism,, 
manifestly  nullifies  or  makes  void  that  explicit  law  ot  Christ 
through  "  a  VLiin  tradition."  Now  no  State  in  this  Union,, 
has  a  right  to  make  a  law,  that  will  contravene  any  law  in  the 
Constitution.  To  do  this  would  be,  not  only  to  disregard  the 
authority  of  the  Union,  but  to  cast  a  reflection  on  its  wisdom. 
And  has  any  minister,  or  church,  a  right  to  make  a  law,  (or 
substitute  a  mere  human  tradition  as  a  law>)  to  contravene  or 
make  void  an  explicit  law  of  Christ,  in  the  Constitution  of  his 
spiritual  kingdom  on  earth  ?  To  do  this,  would  be  a  total  dis- 
regard of  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  well  as  a  reflection 
on  his  wisdom  as  Lawgiver.  Now  to  me  it  is  clear,  that  every 
Pedobaptist  minister  violates  the  phiin,  explicit  law  of  his  com- 
mission, every  time  he  teaches  believing  parents,  that  it  is  their 
duty  to  have  their  children  baptized,  (sprinkled)  and  every  timo 
he  baptizes  (sprinkles)  them,  because  he  makes  this  institution 
of  mere  human  origin,  take  the  place  of  the  divine  institution 
of  believers  baptism,  (whenever  it  is  in  his  power,)  and  thus 
breaks  down  the  authority  of  Christ,  by  "  teaching  for  doctrines 
the  commandments  of  men."  Hear  the  testimony  of  the  fol- 
lowing Pedobaptist  writers. 

Bishop  Butler.  "  Positive  duties  do  not  arise  out  of  the  nature  of  the  case,  but  from  ex-^ 
ternal  command,  received  ;  nor  would  they  be  duties  at  aJl,  were  it  not  for  such  command 
received  from  Him  whose  creatures  and  subjects  we  ore. 

Dr.  Owen. — "Whatever  pretends  to  exceed  the  direction  of  the  Word,  may  be  safely 
rejected;  cannot  be  safely  admitted." 

Collins. — "  Nothing  is  lawful  in  the  worship  of  God,  but  what  we  have  precept  or  prec»% 
dent  forJ' 

Baxter,  in  his  Plain  Scripture  Proof  says.  "  If  any  should  be  bo  impudent,  as  to  »ay  it  'u. 
awl  tUe  meaning  of  Christ  that  baptism  should  iuuuediatol^-,  without  delay  follow  dijcipliii(; 


27 

ihey  are  confuted  by  the  constant  example  of  scripture.  So  that  I  dare  say  this  will 
be  out  of  doubts  with  all  rational,  considerate  and  impartial  Christians. 

Again  he  says  :  "  If  there  be  no  example  given  in  scripture,  of  any  one  that  waa 
baptized  without  the  PROFESSION  OF  SAVING  FAITH,  nor  any  precept  for  so  doing,  then 
must  we  not  baptize  any  without  it.  But  the  antecedent  is  true  ;  therefore  so  is  the 
consequent.  I  know  of  no  word  in  scripture,  that  giveth  us  the  least  encouragtment 
to  baptize  upon  another's  faith." 

Again  :  "  "Vhat  man,"  says  he,  "dare  go  in  a  way,  which  he  hath  neither  precept 
nor  example  to  warrant  it— from  a  way  that  hath  a  full  current  of  both  7  Who  knows 
what  will  please  God  bvithiniself?  Can  thatbe  obedience  which  hatli  no  command  for  it? 

0  the  pride  of  man's  heart ;  that,  instead  of  being  a  law-obeyer,  will  be  a  law-maker." 

Pedohaptist. — "If  you  believe  Mr.  Baxter  to  be  an  honest 
man,  how  do  you  reconcile  the  sentiments  contained  in  these 
quotations  with  +iis  practice  as  a  Peodobaptist? 

Baptist. — I  do  not  conceive  that  it  is  my  duly  to  reconcile 
Mr.  Baxter's  and  a  multitude  of  others'*  views  with  their  prac- 
tice. How  they  can  believe  as  they  do,  that  "there  is  neither 
precept  nor  example  for  infant  baptism  in  the  Scriptures,''  and 
still  remain  Pedobaptists,  is  to  me  utterly  inconceivable,  unless 

1  suppose  that  they  came  to  some  such  conclusion  as  Jeremy 
Taylor,  who  honestly  confesses:  "I  think  there  is  so  much  to 
be  pretended  against  that  which  I  believe  to  be  truth,  that  there 
is  much  more  truth  than  evidence  on  our  side."  "The  only 
difficulty  is,  to  conceive  how,  loiih  such  a  preponderance  of 
evidence  against  them,^^  these  men  "should  be  so  unphilo- 
sophical  as  to  believe  that  their  sentiments  are  true." 

Pedobaptist. — Leaving  to  eminent  Pedobaptists  the  difficult 
task  of  reconciling  their  concessions  with  their  practice,  and 
having  satisfied  myself  on  this  subject,  I  have  only  to  say,  that 
it  would  be  gratifying  to  me,  at  least,  to  hear  you  recapitulate 
briefly  the  ground  we  have  traversed. 

Baptist. — Since  it  has  been  shown,  that  the  great  law  of 
the  commission  requires  faith  as  a  prerequisite  to  baptism,  and 
consequently  does  not  sanction  infant  baptism; — since  it  can- 
not be  proved  that  there  were  any  infants  in  the  household 
baptisms  mentioned,  and  even  if  there  were  many,  it  must  be 
admitted,  that  the  circumstances  described  by  the  pen  of  in- 
spiration, show  clearly,  as  Neander  has  remarked,  that  "the 
narrative  speaks  only  of  adults  or  intelligent  agents;"* — since 
it  has  been  shown,  that  the  covenant  of  circumcision  furnishes 
no  ground  for  infant  baptism,  as  is  conceded  by  Prof.  Stuart 
and  the  most  eminent  biblical  scholars  of  the  age; — since  it  is 

*  All  the  house  of  Cornelius  feared  God,  and  received  the  Holy  Ghost.  Lydia's 
household  were  comforted  as  brethren.  The  word  of  the  Lord  was  spoken  to  all 
in  the  Jailer's  house,  and  they  all  rejoiced,  believing  in  God,  as  well  as  himself. 
All  the  house  of  Crispus  believed  on  the  Lord  ;  and  the  house  of  Stephanus  addicted 
themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  Saints.  It  must  be  evident  now,  that  the  things 
affirmed  of  all  these  baptized  households,  cannot  be  applied  to  infants.  Hence,  w« 
must  conclude  that  no  infants  were  baptized  in  these  houses. 


28 

admitted  by  the  most  eminent  Pedobaptist  writers,  that  there 
is  neitlier  precept  nor  example  for  it  in  the  Scriptures,  and- 
that  it  was  unknown  in  the  apostolical  age; — since  the  voice 
of  history  is  mute,  without  whispering  even  an  allusion  to 
infant  baptism  until  the  days  of  Tertullian  about  A.  D.  200; — 
since  the  silence  of  the  Scriptures  cannot  prove  it  to  be  an 
apostolical  institution,  unless  the  same  evidence  will  prove 
that  Tertulian  lived  in  the  apostolical  age;— since  it  has  been 
admitted,  that  (in  the  apostolical  age)  it  could  not  have  been 
derived  from  proselyte  baptism,  it  having  been  decided  by  the 
most  eminent,  modern  critics,  among  whom  is  Prof.  Stuart, 
that  proselyte  baptism  was  unknown  among  the  Jews  till  aftei' 
the  destruction  of  the  second  temple,  A.  D.  70; — in  short,  since 
the  most  prominent  arguments,  urged  by  the  ablest  writers  in 
favor  of  infant  baptism  as  a  divine  institution  have  been  exam- 
ined and  refuted — the  Baptists  consider  the  controversy  about 
the  subjects  of  baptism  as  really  settled.  They  feel  themselves 
constrained  in  view  of  the  commission,  the  practice  of  the 
apostles  and  the  primitive  Christians,  to  regard  infant  baptism 
as  an  unscr-i •plural  rite,  and  to  maintain  that  believers  in 
Christ  are  the  only  scriptural  subjects  of  baptism.  They  ap- 
peal to  the  Bible  as  their  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  They 
maintain,  that  the  Bible,  "and  not  the  voice  of  tradition,  or 
the  decrees  of  councils,  or  the  bulls  of  Popes — that  the  Bible, 
and  that  alone,  is  the  foundation  of  Christian  faith  and  prac- 
tice;" or,  in  the  words  of  Chillingworth,  "The  Bible,  and  the 
Bible  only,  is  the  religion  of  Protestants." 

Pedobaptist. — You  know,  that  when  we  commenced  our 
conversation  on  this  subject,  I  regarded  the  infant  children  of 
believers  as  proper  subjects  of  the  rite  of  baptism,  but  I  am 
now  convinced,  that  the  scriptures  furnish  no  warrant  for  bap- 
tizing infants. — But  you  remarked,  that  your  denomination 
believed  that  immersion  only  is  baptism.  As  I  am  perfectly 
aware  that  I  made  a  great  mistake  with  regard  to  the  subjects 
of  baptism,  it  would  afford  me  much  pleasure  to  hear  you  ad- 
vance what  evidence  you  have  to  sustain  your  position,  that 
immersion,  and  that  only,  is  baptism. 

Baptist. — I  hope  you  will  be  patient,  while  1  proceed. 
I.  The  riRST  ARGUMENT  /  shall  advance,  to  prove  that  im- 
mersion only  is  baptism,  is  the  import  of  the  term  Baplizo, 
the  word  used  to  designate  the  ordinance. 

Baptism  is  a  Greek  word,  anglicised  from  baptisma,  which 
is  derived  from  baptizo,  and  this  verb  from  its  primitive  hapto. 


29 

whose  primary  meaning  is  to  dip,  plunge,  or  iinmerse.  For  [is 
secondary  meaning  it  has  to  dye,  "  a  signification  growing  out 
of  the  priniary  idea,  inasmuch  as  dyeing  v.ns  originally  per- 
formed by  dipping  the  thing  to  be  dyed  into  colouring  matter." 
This  word,  as  Mr.  CviVson,\nh.is  unanswered  iivA  unimswerable 
treaties  on  baptism,  shows,  was  first  used  to  designate  dyeing  by 
dipping,  but,  iinally,  the  meaning  was  so  extend^id,  th:it  it  deno- 
ted dyeing  in  any  manner."  It  is  worthy  of  note  hero,  that  bapto, 
only  in  its  primary  meaning,  modifies  baptizo.  "  This  is  appar- 
ent, from  the  tact,  that  bapto  is  nexer  applied  to  ike  crdinanee 
of  baptism,  and  baptizo  never  signifies  to  dye.  Baptizo  in 
the  whole  history  of  the  Greek  language,  has  but  one  meaning. 
It  gionifiog  to  dip  or  immerse,  and  never  has  any  other  mean' 
ing.'^  "Each  of  these  words,  therefore,  has  a  specinc  pro- 
vince, into  which  the  othrr  cannot  enter;  Avhile  there  is  a 
common  province,  in  which  either  of  them  may  serve.  Either 
of  them  may  signify  to  dip,  generally  ;  but  the  primitive  cannot 
specifically  express  that  ordinance  to  which  the  derivative  has 
been  appropriated ;  and  the  derivative  cannot  signify  to  di/e, 
which  is  a  part  of  the  province  of  the  primitive." 

That  both  of  these  wordo  mean  to  dip,  plunge,  or  immerse, 

"  ALL  LEXICOGRAPHERS  AND  CRITICS  OFAINY  KOTE,  ARE  AGREED," 

says  Prof.  Stuart.*  "  If  any  person  is  disposed  to  question 
this,"  says  Prof.  Jewett  "he  can  satisfy  himself  by  examining 
places  in  which  the  words  occur  in  Greek.  Out  of  about  two 
hundred  passnges,  taken  at  random,  where  these  wortisare  em- 
ployed in  their  primary  and  proper  sense,  the  idea  is,  m  every 
instance,  to  dip,  plunge,  or  immerse.  I  have  already  remarked, 
that,  in  addition  to  these  significations,  bapto  means  to  dye,  color, 
or  tinge  ;t  and  baptizo,  in  its  literal  and  proper  ^ense,  never 
means  anything  but  to  immerse,  dip,  or  plunge  ;  and  when  used 
in  ^figurative  application,  the  figure  entirely  depends  for  its 
force  and  beauty,  on  the  primary  idea  of  immersion,  or  plung- 
ing. If  erroneous,  these  positions  can  easily  be  disproved  by 
a  reference  to  the  orignal  classics  ;  but,  adding  my  own  labors, 
to  those  of  the  writers  whose  works  I  have  examined,  I  havo 
never  been  able  to  discover  a  single  passage,  which  authorizes 
me  to  abandon  the  ground  just  taken." 

*  M.  Stuart  is  one  of  tiie  distinguished  professsrs  of  the  Andover  Theological  Sem- 
inary, Mass.,  and^is,  generally,  rogarded  by  Pedobaptists,  as  their  ablest  Biblical  scholar 
in  this  country.  Every  person,  who  has  read  Prof.  Stuart's  Essay  on  baptism,  ought  to 
read  the  Exaraiaation  of  that  Essay  by  Prof.  Ripley,  of  Newton,  or  Judd's  review,  both, 
triumphant  answers,  and  both  written  in  a  "  kind  christian  spirit."  .    . 

t  "  The  lake  was  tinged  with  blood."  Homer's  "battle  of  the  Frogs,— -where  bapto,  not 
BAPTIZO,  is  used. 


30 

As  a  further  confirmation  of  this  fact,  I  would  state  that  Prof* 
Stuart  has  quoted  passages  from  the  Greek  classical  authors, 
Homer,  Pindar,  Aristotle,  Aristophanes,  Herodotus,  Heraclides 
Ponticus,  Anitus,  Zenophen,  Plutarch,  Lucian,  Diodorus  Sicu- 
lus,  Plato,  Epictetus,  Hippocrates,  Strabo,  Polybus,  Josephus, 
and  others,  all  of  whom  use  the  words  bapto  and  baptizo,  to 
signify  immerse.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  here,  that  Prof. 
Stuart,  throughout  the  Greek  classics  and  the  Soptuagint,*  as- 
signs to  the  word  baptizo,  only  immerse,  overwhelm.  Hence, 
ell  Greek  literature  goes  to  prove  that  it  means  immerse. 
Their  poets,  pliilosophers,  physicians,  historians,  and  orators, 
use  it  only  in  the  sense  of  immersion,  dipping,  and  never  attach 
to  it  any  other  meaning.  Not  in  the  whole  range  of  the 
Greek  classics,  can  it  be  found  to  denote  any  thing  else,  than 
to  immerse  or  dip.  Again,  Prof.  Stuart,  on  page  300,  after 
summing  up  his  citations  from  the  classics,  comes  to  this  con- 
clusion. "  It  were  easy  to  enlarge  this  list  of  testimonies  to 
classic  usaf-e,  but  the  reader  will  not  desire  it.  He  may  see 
many  examples  in  Carson's  recent  publication  on  baptism, 
which  I  did  not  see  until  after  the  present  dissertation  was 
written.  It  is  impossible  to  doubt,  that  the  words  bapto  and 
baptizo,  have,  in  the  Greek  classical  writers,  the  sense  of  dip^ 
plunge,  immerse,  sink,  4*c."  But  it  may  be  asked  here,  does  not 
Prof.  Stuart  show  that  the  Greek  classic  writers  use  baptizo  to 
signify  pourijig  or  sprinkling  ?  I  answer  no  !  not  a  single  in- 
stance  has  he  adduced  from  the  Greek  classics,  in  which  the 
word  is  used  to  denote  either  to  pour,  or  sprinkle.  Indeed,  he 
has  said  in  private  conversation,  that  "it  cannot  be  translated 
sprinJcle.-f  It  is,  therefore,  no  cause  of  wonder,  that  when 
Prof.  Jewett  commenced  his  investigations  of  this  subjects,  by 
reading  Prof.  Stuart's  essay  on  baptism  that  he  "  was  soon  as- 
tonished to  find  in  Stuart*s  investigation,  proof,  so  strong  that 
the  word  in  its  literal,  ordinary  sense,  universally  means  to 
immerse,  plunge,  or  dip.  "  It  looked"  says  he,  as  if  with  this  fact 
before  him,  the  learned  Professor  ought  to  have  become  a  Bap- 
list."  *' 1  was  alarmed,"  says  Prof.  Jewett,  and  "  would  have 
given  up  the  inquiry,  but  could  not."  Finally  after  a  thorough 
examination  of  the  subject,   he  was  compelled  to  admit,  as  a 

*  The  Soptuagint  is  the  Greek  version  or  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  from  the 
Hebrew.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  here,  that  there  are  three  difTcrciit  words  used  in  the 
Hebrew  to  denote  tlie  three  actions  of  dipping,  pouring,  and  sprinkling.  Taval  or  tebel 
cignifies  to  dip  j  Saphack,  to  pour,  and  zarak,  to  sprinkle.  In  tlie  SeptuagintBAPTO  or 
BAPTIZO  is  the  representative  of  taval,  ch£0  of  saphack,  aud  raimo  of  ZaRAK. 

t  Se0  Broiuoa'i  examination  of  Fowler  pa;e22& 


31 

philologist  and  interpreter  of  the  Bible,  that  immersion  and  that 
only,,  is  the  baptism  that  Christ  enjoins. '^ 

That  we  have  taken  a  correct  view  of  this  subject,  viz  .' 
That  immersion  is  the  exclusive  signification  of  Baptizo 
is  frankly  acknowledged,  by  some  of  the  most  learned,  andem» 
inent  Pedobaptists  of  various  denominations.  We  might  with 
propriety  remark  here,  that  the  learned  Vvorld  does  not  afford 
more  competent  authority  than  the  following. 

John  Calvin,  the  celebrated  founder  of  the  Presbj'terian  chureh,  saj's  ;  "  that  baptism 
was  administered  by  John  and  Christ  by  plunging  the  whole  body  underwater."  Again  he 
says  ;  '  the  word  baptizo  sigu-iies  to  immerse,  and  it  is  certain  the  rite  of  immersion  waa 
jiractised  by  the  ancient  church." 

Witsius. — •'  It  cannot  be  denied,  that  the  native  signification  of  the  words  eaptein  and 
BAPTiZEiN,  is  to  plunge  or  dip." 

Buddaeus. — "  The  word  baptizein  is  always  to  be  interpreted  of  immersion." 

Alstidius. — "  BaptiZhin  signifies  only  to  immerse." 

Zanchins. — *'  The  proper  signification  of  baptizo,  is  to  immerse,  plunge  under,  to  over* 
whelm  in  water," 

Aitiugius. — "  For  baptism  is  immersion,  when  the  whole  body  is  iramergea  ;  but  the 
term  baptism,  is  mever  used  with  respect  to  sprinkling." 

Beza. — "  Christ  commanded  us  to  be  baptized  ;  by  which  word,  it  is  certain,  immersion 
i«  signified.    To  be  baptized  in  water,  signifies  no  other  than  to  be  immerskd  in  water." 

Casaubon, — "This  was  the  rde  of  1  aptizing,  that  persons  weke  plunged  into  the 
water:  which  the  very  word  baptizein  sulficientiy  declares." 

Mr.  l-eigh. — "  The  native  and  proper  signification  of  it  [baptize]  is  to  dip  into  water,  or 
to  plunge  under  water." 

Bossuet,  bishop  of  Meaux. — "  To  baptize  signifies  to  plunge,  as  is  granted  bj'  all  the 
world." 

Dr.  Campbell,  late  Principal  of  the  Marschale  College  at  Aberdeen,  a  Prosbyteriaa. 
the  learned  translator  of  the  four  Gospels  with  critical  notes,  says  :  "  The  word  baptize- 
in,  botli  in  sacred  authors  and  in  clas<;.cal,  signifies  to  DIP,  to  plunge,  to  immerse.  It  is  al« 
waj's  construed  suitabl3-to  this  meaning." 

Augusti. — "The  word  baptism,  according  to  etymology  and  usage,  signifies  to  im- 
merse, SUBMERGE-,  &c,  and  the  choice  of  the  word  betrays  an  age  in  which  the 
latter  custom  of  sprinkling  had  notbeex  introduced." 

"Prof.  Porsoii,  of  the  University  of  Cambridge,  and  Episcopalian,  acknowledged  by  all 
competent  judges  to  have  been  the  first  scholar  in  England,  pronounced  it  absurd  to 
imagine  that  [baptizo]  had  any  other  proper  meaning  than  to  dip  entirely,  to  plunge,  or 
immerse." 

Martin  Luther. — Speaking  of  children,  he  says :  "  They  ought  to  be  completely  im- 
mersed, FOR  the  etymology  OF  THE  Vy-ORD  (BAPTISM,')  EVIDENTLY  REQUIRES  IT."      Again, 

he  says  :  "  If  \"ou  consider  what  baptism  signifies,  you  shall  see  the  same  thing  (immersion) 
required  ;  for  it  sl;rnifies,  that  the  old  man  of  our  nativity,  that  is,  full  of  sins,  which  is  en- 
tirely of  flesh  and  Ijlood,  may  be  overwhelmed  by  divine  grace.  The  manner  of  baptism, 
therefore,  should  correspond  to  the  signification  of  baptism,  that  it  may  show  a  certain  and 
plain  sign  of  it."  "  This  is  a  sentiment  which  well  becomes  the  great  Reformer.  Had  he 
and  his  associates  consistently  carried  out  the  whole  principle  involved  in  this  expression, 
the  Reformation  would  have  been  more  complete  ;  they  would  have  cut  the  last  link  which 
bound  the  Reformed  to  the  Papal  church.  But  alas!  thej' failed  here.  No  wonder,  that, 
when  the  Baptists  in  Germany  began  to  agitate  this  subject,  Melaucthon  said  to  Luther." 
*'  Nov,'  the  devil  has  attacked  us  in  our  weakest  point." 

Having  thus  shown,  that  the  clear,  proper  signification 
of  the  term  baptizo  is  to  dip,  plunge,  immerse,  and  that  many 
of  the  most  eminent  a!ul  learned  Pedobaptist  writers  frankly, 
and  explicitly,  bear  their  testimony  to  the  same  tact,  I  cannot 
avoid  the  inevitable  conclusion,  that  Jesus  Christ  intended, 
(when  giving  his  commission,)  to  enjoin  immersion,  or  he 
would  never  have  made  choice  of  the  word  he  did,  to  designate 
the  ordinance. 


32 

But  as  there  are  many  who  will  reject  this  evidence,  let  us 
take  another  view  of  the  subject.  Suppose  that  two  divisions 
of  the  Greek  church,  should,  unhappily,  fall  into  a  dispute, 
about  the  legitimate  meaning  of  our  English  word  immerse, 
:ind  one  division  should  maintain,  that  the  specific  import  of 
the  term  is  baptizo,  thapto,  to  dip,  to  bury.  The  other  should 
contend,  that  the  term  is  generic^  and  signifiies  either  cheo,  to 
pour ;  raniizOi  to  sprinkle ;  nipto,  to  wash  the  hands,  face,  or 
feet  ;  louo,  to  wash  or  bathe  the  body  ;  or  kaihairo,  to  cleanse,  or 
baptize,  to  dip,  or  in  fact,  it  means  the  application  of  water  in 
any  way.  The  question  that  naturally  arises  now,  is  this ; 
Can  the  meaning  of  this  term  be  ascertained?  Who  possesses 
the  requisite  knowledge  to  determine  its  meaning,  and  thus 
end  the  controversy  ?  Why,  unquestionably  the  English, 
Ihose  who  use  the  English  language.  If  they  decide  that  it 
signifies  to  dp,  toimmerge,  to  bury,  and  that  noothe^Jmeaning 
has  ever  been  attached  to  it  as  far  back  as  the  language  can 
bfe  traced  ;  I  ask,  would  not  this,  ought  not  this,  to  settle  the 
question  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  ?  Would  it  not  be  the 
height  of  folly,  to  demur  against  the  decision  of  so  competent 
a  tribunal  ?  Now,  where  is  there  a  word  in  any  language,  that 
is  used  generally  to  denote  the  action  of  dipping  or  immers- 
ing, and  at  the  same  time  signifies  pouring,  or  sprinkling  ? 
Where  is  there  a  language  that  ever  had  a  "  local  habitation," 
name,  or  existence,  that  has  not  a  definite  term  expressive  of 
the  act  of  immersion  ?  Have  the  Greeks  no  term  specifically 
expressive  of  this  act  ?  Can  they  definitely  and  exclusively 
convey  the  idea  of  immersion?  Most  assuredly  ;  for,  from  the 
days  of  Homer  until  now,  they  have  always  "understood  the 
word  baptizo,  to  denote  the  act  o{ immers'um,  and  ranlizo,  to  de- 
jiote  the  act  of  sprinkling.  And  if  you  strike  the  words  bapio 
;  nd  baptizo  from  their  vocabulary,  they  have  none  more  defi- 
r.ite  to  express  the  act  immersion.  If  this  word  does  not  de- 
note it  with  certainty,  then  that  rich  [definite]  language  is  des- 
titute of  a  certain  sign  to  denote  this  simple  common  act. 
li^xamine  such  a  work  as  Tittman's  iSynonymes  of  the  Greek 
Testament,  and  you  will  not  find  a  word  placed  there,  as  the 
(  quivalent  of  baptizo."  I  am  aware  that  it  may  be  said  here, 
that  Barnes  in  his  note  on  Mat.  3  ;  G,  says  :  "  the  word  bap- 
t/ze,  signifies  originally  to  tinge,  to  dye,  to  stain ;"  and,  that  Dr. 
]) wight  affirms,  that  "<Ae  body  of  learned  CriiicSf  and  lexicog- 
raphers declare,  that  the  original  medLuing  of  bajJtizo  and  baptOf 


33 

is  to  tinge,  stain,  dye,  or  color ;  and  that  when  it  means  immer^ 
sioN,  it  is  only  in  an  occasional  and  secondary  sense.* 

Now  reader,  that,  with  one  view,  you  may  see  what  a  strik- 
ing contrast  there  is,  between  Pedobaptist  writers  on  this  sub- 
ject. We  shall  again  quote  the  language  of  Prof.  Stuart,  who 
says  :  "  It  is  impossible  to  doubt,  that  the  words  hapto  and  hap- 
tizo  have,  in  the  Greek  classic  writers,  the  sense  of  dip,  plunge, 
immerse,  sink."  "  All  lexicographers  and  critics  of  any  note, 
are  agreed  in  this."  Again,  throughout  the  Greek  classics  and 
Septuagint,  he  assigns  to  baptizo,  only  the  sense  of  immerse, 
overwhehn.^^-f     (See  page  29th  and  30th,  of  this  tract). 

Query. —  4.re  Dr.  D wight  and  and  Barnes  "critics  o/'any 
NOTE  ?     Who  shall  decide  when  Doctors  disagree? 

Now  the  question  is,  are  these  contradictory  statements 
true  ?  Does  baptize  from  baptizo  signify  to  tinge,  to  dye,  to 
stain,  as  affirmed  by  Barnes  and  Dwight,  or  to  immerse,  over- 
whelm, as  asserted  by  Prof.  Stuart  ?  "  Does  the  body  of  learn, 
ed  critics,  make  immersion  a  secondary  and  occasional  meaning 
of  the  word?     Let  us  make  a  little  examination  of  this  subject. 

We  will  commence  by  introducing  the  testimony  of  a  native 
Greek. 

Stoudza,  in  a  work  publiaheJ  in  1816,  says  -.  *'  The  Western  church  has  departel 
from  the  imitation  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  has  dispeleJ  from  view  all  the  sublimity  of 
this  external  sign.  In  short,  it  has  done  violence  both  to  the  word  and  the  idea,  in  prac- 
tising baptism  by  aspersion,  the  very  enunciation  of  which  is  a  ludicrous  contradic- 
tion. In  truth,  the  word  baptizo  immergo  (immerse,)  has  but  one  signification.  It 
signifies  literally  and  invariably,  •  to  plunge.'  Baptism  and  immersion  are  identical ; 
and  to  say  baptism  by  aspersion  is  the  same  as  to  say  immersion  by  aspersion,  or  any 
other  contradiction  in  terms." 

Crysostom,  one  of  the  greatest  men  in  the  ancient  Greek  church,  explains  baptism  as 
being  an  immersion  and  then  an  emersion.  And  though  he  speaks  of  it  in  innumerable 
instances  in  13  folio  volumes,  never  alludes  to  sprinkling,  but,  on  the  contrary,  defines  it  to 
be,  "  a  plunging  into  water  and  raising  out  of  it,"  and  says,  "  that  we  enter  into  the  water 
a  into  a  grave,"   and,  that  "the  whole  man  is  completelj  concealed  by  immersion." 

Theophylact,  another  of  tbe  Greek  Fathers,  says  :  "  Baptism  is  performed  by  three  im^ 
mersions." 

The  Greek  Patriarch  Jeremiah,  says  :  "  The  ancients  were  uot  accustomed  to  sprinkla 
the  candidate,  but  to  immerse  him." 

*l5r.  Cox,  in  reply  to  Dr.  Dwight's  assertion,  says  :  "  This  is  passing  strange,  ani 
I  confess,  that  the  only  way  in  which  upon  the  principles  of  christian  charity,  I  can 
account  for  so  untrue  a  statement,  is  by  concluding,  that  Dr.  Dwight,  never  examined 
the  authorities."  He  then  refers  to  several  Lexicons,  and  says:  '•  I  demand  only  a 
simple  inspection  of  them,  as  an  answer  to  this  strange  and  erroneous  representation." 

t  Dr.  Campbell,  when  speaking  of  the  fact,  that  "  the  baptized  are  said  axabanei.v, 
to  arise,  emerge  or  ascend,  Mat.  3 :  16,  apo  tou  udatos,,  and  Acts  8 :  39,  ex  tou  udatos, 
from,  or  out  of  the  water,  says  :  Let  it  be  observed  further,  that  the  verbs  raino,  and 
rantizo,  used  in  scripture  for  sprinkling,  are  never  construed  in  this  manner.  AVhen, 
therefore,  the  Greek  word  baptizo  (rendered  I  baptize,)  is  adopted,  I  may  say,  rather 
than  translated  into  modern  languages,  the  mode  of  construction  ought  to  be  preserved, 
so  far  as  may  conduce  to  suggest  its  original  import.  It  is  to  be  regretted,  that  we  have 
so  much  evidence  that  even  good  and  learned  men  allow  their  udgments  to  be  warped 
by  the  sentiments  and  customs  of  the  sect  they  prefer.  The  true  partizan,  of  whateve^. 
denomination,  always  inclines  to  correct  the  diction  of  the  spirit,  by  that  of  tUc 
party.'* 


34 

Cristopulus,  aGreek,  in  his  confession  of  faith,  snys  :  ''We  follow  the  example  of  tha 
Rpostles,  who  immersed  the  candidate  under  water." 

Ig^Oleurius,  in  his  Persian  Travels,  saj  s :  "  The  Muscovites  call  those  who  are  not  immersed 
ill  baptism  'sprinkled  christians,'  and  therefore  rebaptize  sitcii  as  join  tiieir  church." 

Walch,  says ;  "  The  Greeks  regard  immersion  as  essential  to  baptism,  and  reject  sprink- 
ling." 

August). — "  The  Oriential  church  has  not  only  preserved  unchanged  the  custom  of  im., 
mersion,  but  declare  it  so  essential,  that  they  rebaptize  those  who  were  only  sprinkled, 
and,  by  way  of  contempt,  cull  them  '  sprinkled  christians,' " 

These  quotations,  with  what  haa  preceded,  show  the  invar- 
iable sentiment  of  the  whole  Greek  church.  Indeed,  where 
can  there  be  found,  at  the  present  day,  a  learned  lexicographer, 
theological  critic,  or  commentator,  that  will  venture  his  reputa- 
tion by  the  assertion,  that  the  Greek  church  have  not  invaria- 
bly practised  immersion  as  baptism  with  persons  in  health?  or 
that  immersion  is  not  the  primary,  radical  meaning  of  baptizo  ? 
Now  let  us  turn  to  the  testimonies  of  some  of  our  modern 
critics,  and  then  to  the  lexicographers. 

Prof.  Fritsche,  a  disciple  of  Hermann,  in  his  Com.  on  Mat.  3 :  6,  says :  "  That  baptism  was 
performed  not  by  sprinkling,  but  by  immersion,  is  evident,  not  only  from  the  nature  of  the 
word,  but  from  liom.  6:  4." 

Buttmann.  in  his  largest  Grammar,  simply  puts  down,  "  bapto  to  immerse"  (tanchen). 

Brenner. — "  The  word  corresponds  in  signification  with  the  German  word,  taufen,  to  sink 
into  the  d^  ep." 

The  author  of  Free  Inquiry  respecting  Baptism. — "  Baptism  is  perfectly  identical  with 
our  word  immersion,  or  submersion  (tauchen  oder  untertauchen).  If  immersion  under 
water  is  for  the  purpose  of  cleansing  or  washing,  then  the  word  means  cleansing  or  wash- 
ing." 

Bretschneider,  in  his  Theology. — "An  entire  immersion  belongs  to  the  nature  of  bap- 
eism.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the  word."  This  writer  is  confessedly  the  most  critical  lexi- 
eographer  ofthe  New  Testament." 

Kaiser,  Uib.  Theol. — '*  Bapto  is  a  perfect  immmersion  ;  Baptizo,  to  sink  nearly  to 
tlie  bottom  in  water."    These  are  his  definitions. 

Paullus,  in  his  Com.  says :  "  The  word  baptize  signifies  in  Greek,  sometiaies  to  im- 
ETierse,  sometimes  to  submerge." 

Rheinhard'd  Ethics. — "  In  sprinkling,  the  symbolical  meaning  of  the  ordinance  is 
wholly  lost." 

We  will  now  turn  our  attention  to  the  testimony  of  Lexicog. 
raphers,  and  commence  with  the  testimony  of  the  excellent 
Greek  and  English  Lexicon  of  Dr.  John  Jones,  which  gives  the 
plain  obvious  import  of  words  without  refining  or  accommoda- 
ting : — (The  reader  will  bear  in  mind  here,  that  baptizo  is  tho 
only  word  in  the  original  scriptures,  used  to  designate  tho  rito 
of  baptism,  and  is  the  only  one,  anglecised  in  our  language 
baptize.  Of  course  if  we  can  discover  the  true  meaning  oi bap- 
tizo we  shall  theia  ascertain  what  is  essential  to  the  rite  of 
baptism). 

1.  Jones. — Bapto,  I.  dip;  I  dye,  stain.  Baptizo.— I  phinge  ;  I  plunge  in  water,  dip» 
bury,  overwhelm.  2.  Richardson's  Lexicon,  justly  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  valuable 
ever  published, — Baptizo  is  rendered,  to  dip,  or  merge  m  water,  to  sink,  to  plunge,  to 
immerse.  3.  rurkhurst.— To  dip,  immerse,  submerge,  plunge.  4.  Doncgan's.— To  im- 
merse, submerge,  saturate,  drench,  &c.  5.  Schleusner. — To  immerse,  to  plunge,  to 
eink  into  water,  6.  Pickering. — To  dip,  immerse,  submerge,  plunge,  sink.  7.  Had- 
rian.— To  immerse. 

The  definitions  ofthe  remainin'j  ones,  we  shall  give  in  classes.  8.  Buddeus,9.  Conloi>, 
10.  Cole,  11.  Plautinufl,  12.  Jrtockius,  13.  Grove,  14.  Xilander,  15.  Jlopper,  16.  Har- 


S5 

tung,  17.  Juniui?,  IS.  Gesnerj  10.  Tasanus,  20.  Constantine,  21.  Ewing,  22.  S  hreveliusH 
iinriroved  by  HiH,'Boyor,  and  Eiitic.  The  f-fteen  last  Lexicographers  give,  generally,  tlie'. 
following  definitions,  toiUp,  to  plunge,  imoieroe,  wash,  Lnd  one  or  two  of  them  add,  to 
sprinkle. 

23.  "Stephen?,  54.  Scppula,  2.5.  Siii'er  in  hf  th  of  his  Lexicons.  2»}.  Sjhieusner,  in 
bo::h;  27.  HeJeri2Us,  23.  Soh  eid  v, -iP.  Wahl,  30.  B.etfc  .p'ider,  31.  Pussow,  32.  Roit, 
and  other?,  n.)t  only  make  iaiuiorsi,  r.  tl-e  priuiary  and  radi -hI  meaning  cf  the  word,  but 
be.'.ause  (.-{ui  daher)  it  is  so,  it  si;Ti)ifies  say  shiy,  to  dye,  bathe,  W(?sh  ;  (the  consequence 
of  dipping,)  and  one  or  two  of  them  add,  to  sprinkle.  But  it  is  easy  to  see,  that  aceord- 
ingto  tlie^reason  alleged,  it  niusr.  merin,  eitlier  in  reality,  or  in  the  concepiion  of  the  wri- 
ters who  so  emjiloy  it,  to  be  sprinkled  so  as  to  be  wet  all  over."  ' 

"  Prof.  Rost,  the  principal  Greek  lexicographer  now  livinrr, 
ill  his  standird  Geniian  (jreek  Lexicon,  revised  v/ith  the  as=. 
sistance  of  a  n:itive  Greek,  puts  down  as  the  primary  significa. 
tion  of  all  such  word-  us  plunge,  immerse^  smd  submerse,  (laucheii, 
cintauch  n,  wwiei'tuv^cXien,)  bapto ;  but,  under  the  words  «/;a5/i, 
tret, pour,  nnd  the  like,  -  waschen,  benetzen,  gieasin,  begie.ssen.' 
tiiough  he  gives  co,)iou3  definitions  in  Greek,  he  7iever  employs 
the  word  bapio,  or  any  of  its  derivatives.  Can  any  thing  be 
more  to  the  point." 

xVs  we  have  pursued  this  examination  as  far  as  we  design  to, 
with  regard  to  lpxico(ira.phicaf  testimony,  \ve  proceed  to  in- 
quire what  is  the  testimony  given  by  these  eminent  Critics, 
and  Lexicographers?  Do  they  all,  or  even  the  body  of  them 
endorse  the  assertions  of  Dwigiit  and  Barnes,  that  ihe  original 
meaning  of  baptizo,  i&  to  tinge,  dye,  color?  No!  not  even 
one  gives  that  as  the  original,  primary  meaning  ;  and,  but  a 
very  few  give  it  as  a  consequential  one.  Do  they  all  give 
sprinkling,  as  the  radical  primary  meaning  of  the  word?  No  ! 
not  one  ;  and  there  aredjiit  two  or  three,  that  even  mention  the 
term,  'i'he  same  may  be  said  respectilig  pouring  and  cleans-., 
ing.  Do  they  all  give  vjasJiing,  as  the  primary,  original  mean^ 
iag  of  the  word  ?  AgJiin,  the  answer  is  in  the  negative;  and 
iU  re  are  but  about  two  thirds  of  the  Lexicons,  that  give  it  as  a 
secondary  or  consequential  meaning.  ])o  they  all  give  dip, 
plunge  or  immerse,  as  the  primary  radical  meaning  of  the  word  ? 
The  answer  i^  now,  for  the  first  time,  in  the  affirmative  ;  and 
their  is  not  a  dissenting  voice  to  this,  among  all  the  lexicogra-. 
phers  and  critics  we  have  examined.  Indeed,  the  united,  unan- 
imous  testimony  of  the  thirty-three  Lexicons,  [and  I  am  ac- 
quainted with  no  other's,]  and  all  the  critics,  we  have  examin- 
ed [and  not  one  to  my  knowledge  is  a  Baptist,]  goes  to  confirra 
the  statement  of  Prof.  Stuart,  Hence,  the  statement  ofDwight 
9,nd  Barnes,  rests  on  their  own  ipse  dixit  or  assertion,  without 
even  a  "lexicographer  or  critic  oi  any  note,'' ^  as  endorser. 

But  suppose  we  admit  as  truth,  the  assertions  of  Dwighfe 
and  Barnes,  "  that  the  primary,  orioinal  meaning  of  Baptizo^ 
is  to  iingey  stain,  dye,  or  color.^'     Then  it  follows,  that  Chris| 


.^6 

rommantled  his  apostles  to  tinge,  stain,  dye,  or  color,  his  be- 
lieving suhJGcts ;  or  else,  that  he  usod  the  word  out  of  its  or- 
dinary sens.;,  and  that  too,  without  even  advertising  the  apos- 
tles of  the  fact.  Now  if  we  admit,  that  housed  the  word  out 
of  its  ordinary  sense,  (and  therefore,  the  I'edobaptists  are  justi- 
iied  in  interpreting  it  to  sprinkle,)  tlion  it  might,  with  equal 
propriety,  he  admitted,  that  he  used  the  word  metanmeo,io  re- 
pent, out  of  its. ordinary  sense,  (and  theref)re,  the  Papists  are 
justified  in  translating  it  do  penance.)  Grant  the  same  libirty 
to  infidels,  and  they  would  lind  no  difficulty  in  proving  hy  the 
Bible,  that  there  is  no  hereafier.  Indeed,  wei^3  they  now  to 
follow  the  example  of  Podobaptists  in  the  interpretation  ofthis 
word,  they  would  find  no  difficulty  in  proving  that  all  the  hap- 
piness and  misery  of  man  is  confined  within  the  narrow  bound- 
aries of  this  life.  This  argument  if  we  substitute  the  primitive 
immersion,  for  tinge,  dye,  etc.,  would  be  conclujive  against 
sprinkling  and  p.-mring. 

Cut  it  may  bo  asked,  why  do  some  of  ihcse  lexicographers 
give  to  dye,  or  tinge,  as  one  of  the  definitions  of  baptizo.  I  an- 
swer, betbre  Mr.  Carson  issued  his  treaties  on  baptism,  both 
hapto,  and  haptizo,  were  regarded  as  perfectly  synonymous  in 
moaning,  but  to  him  belongs  the  honor  of  dicovering,  that  tho 
primitive  word  bnpto,  has  two  significations,  the  primary  to 
dip,  the  secondary,  to  di/e  ;  and,  that  baptizo,  in  the  whole  range 
of  Greek  literature,  has  only  the  sense  of  dip,  or  immerse. 
Prof.  Stuart,  notices  this  distinction,  for  he  has  not  given  to 
haptizo,  the  sense  of  to  dye,  while  he  has,  to  hapto. 

it  may  be  asked  here,  if  the  Greek  haptizo,  does  not  slgnity 
cither  to  pour,  or  sprinlde ;  why,  have  two  or  three  of  these 
lexicons  given  this  meaning  ?  I  reply,  a  number  of  these  lexi- 
cons have  been  written  since  pouring  and  sprinkling  have  come 
into  use  ;  and,  1  believe,  it  is  a  general  rule  with  lexicogra- 
pliers,  first,  to  give  the  definition  of  m  ords  according  to  their 
real  import ;  and  then,  if  a  largo  portion  of  people  use  the  word 
in  a  new  and  different  sense,  to  superadd  that.  The  same  ques- 
tion  may  bj  raised  in  regard  to  wasli  ^ndcleanse,  but  these  will 
ba  noticed  in  their  proper  place. 

Now,  every  person  acquainted  with  the  laws  of  interpreta- 
tion, will  admit,  that  the  primary,  radical  import  of  a  word, 
should  always  be  taken  as  the  true  one,  unless,  something  in 
the  circumstances  of  the  case,  or  structure  of  the  passage,  ab- 
solutely requires  another,  a  different  meaning.  This  is  a  set- 
tled  rule  of  exposition  ;    tho  purport  of  which,  is  adopted  by 


37 

all  interprelors.*  Is  there  any  thing  In  a  single  passage,  in 
wliich  the  oidinance  of  christian  Baptism,  is  mentioned  in  the 
New  Te:?t.iment,  that  absolutely  requires  u^  to  depart  from 
this  canon,  by  assigning  to  the  term  haptizo  any  other  than  its 
primary,  ordinary  import. f  Indeed,  there  are  many  things,  in 
the  sacred  record,  that  teach  us,  that  we  are  not  at  liberty  to 
depart  from  the  primitive  rite  of  immersion  [baptism].  It  is  a 
solemn  tiling,  to  alter  the  word,  or  the  ordinances  of  God. 
Two  of  the  sons  of  Aaron,  in  the  offering  of  incense,  made  a 
change  in  a  single  circumstance,  nnrijire  from  the  Lord  destroyed 
theiv.  Jehovah  will  be  sa'-c'ifiedin  them  (hat  come  nigh  him,  and 
before  oil  the  people  he  will  be  glorified. 

"  As  the  principle  of  interpretation  here  involved  is  of  great 
importanC'^,  I  may  be  allowed  to  illustrate  by  a  ftimiliar  exam- 
ple, 1  give  to  A.  B.  a  proniissory  note,  payable  on  demand.. 
Now,  I  am  bound  to  pa}'-  the  note  whenever  presented;  and  I 
cannot  plead,  that  the  words  '  on  demand,'  should  be  literally 
construed  ;  that  certain  circumstances  make  it^ probable,  they 
are  not  used  in  their  ordinary  sense.  The  holder  will  justly 
urfre,  that  these  words  have  a  definite  and  well  ascertained 
meaning,  and  I  must  sitisfy  his  claim  fortJuvith,  unless  I  can 
show  it  is  impossible,  that  in  my  case  the  phrase  should  be  un- 
derstood according  to  its  usual  signification.  The  burden  of 
proof  lies  on  me,  and  i  must  make  it  evident  beyond  dispute, 
that  the  terms  cannot  possibly  have  the  customary  sense,  or  I 
I  shall  be  obliged  to  liquidate  the  debt." 

"  So  in  the  case  before  us,  it  is  not  enough  that  there  are  op- 
parent  improbabilities  opposed  to  the  customary  use  of  the  term 
in  question  ;  the  ordinary  force  of  it  must  be  plainly  impossible, 
or  we  must  retain  its  usual  sense.  But  no  such  impossibility 
exists,"  as  we  have  shown  by  Prof.   Stuart. 

Finally,  it  is  a  self-evident  fact, that  the  usus  loquendi,  t\  at  is 
the  practical  use  of  a  word  among  the  best  writers  and  speakers 
of  a  language,  must  determine  its  meaning.  This  is  the  sourcj 
or  fountain,  to  which  all  lexicographers  are  obliged  to  resort,  for 
their  knowledge.  This  is  the  highest — the  only  ultimate  au- 
thority.    Now,  setting  aside  the  testimonies  of  lexicographers, 

*Mr.  Ferguson,  a  very  learned  man,  says  :  "  Ii  men  may  be  permiUedto  forsake  the 
natural  an:l  genuine  sense  of  words,  uhere  the  matter  is  capable  of  it ;  they  ma  •,  not- 
wi-hstandiiig  iheir  declaring  themselves  to  believe  the  Gospe},  yet  believe  notliin.^  at  all 
of  the  chrisrian  fai:h."  "  AVe  are  not  to  forsake  the  genuine  and  natural  significa  on  c  f 
words,  unlef-stlieir  be  the  highest  evidence,  that  the  author  did  otherwise  iutend  the  n," 
saith  the  civil  law.  And,  as  Austin,  says :  "  the  proper  signification  of  words  is  always 
to  be  regained,  unless  ne.?essity  enforces  us  to  expound  them  otherwise." 

t  Prof.  Stuart,  speaking  of  the  circumstances  connected  with  the  rite  of  baptism,  in 
the  New  Testament,  says  :  "  I  find  none,  I  am  quite  ready  to  concede,  whijh  seems  ah- 
eolutely  to  determine  that  immersion  was  not  practised."    This  is  all  we  ask» 


the  nieptninn;  oChaptizy  fan  be  d.- finitely  determined  by  Greek 
clnssical  usage,  and  that,  beyond  all  reasonable  dispute  ;  or,  it 
tbllovvs,  that  it  is  impogsihJe  to  ascertain  the  mb^ining  of  any 
word  in  Greek.  "  The  le^arned  Greeks  for  two  thousand  seven 
hundred  years,  have  decided  by  usage,  that  the  word  signifies  to 
dip,  to  immerse  ;  consequently,  it  does  not  ;mean  to  pour,  or 
sprinkle."  It  is  utterly  futile  for  any  man  to  attempt  to  shako 
this  authority,  as  well  might  ho  undertake  to  level  the  Alega- 
nies,  or  "  remove  the  rock  of  Gibralter."  '•  Learning,  ingenu- 
ity, sophistry,  great  names,  positive  assertions,  are  all  in  vain, 
when  put  in  requisition  for  tliis  purpose.  After  all  such  impo- 
tint  attempts,  the  simple  authentic  fact,  that  myriads  of 
Greeks"  from  the  days  of  Homer,  (the  oldest  prof  me  Greek 
writer,  who  flourished  more  than  two  thousand  seven  hundred 
years  since,)  "until  the  present  time,  have  use  I  the  word 
invariably  to  signify  immersion,  and  figuratively  overwhelm- 
ing, stands  out  in  bold  relief  l>efore  a  candid  and  leariiLd  world." 
Here,  then,  with  this  universal!}'  acknowledged  fact,  and  tho 
concurrent  testimony  of  so  many  eminent,  learned,  and  criti- 
cal standard  authors,  together  v  ith  the  united  testimonies  of 
33  Greek  Lexicons,  on  the  primary,  literal  meaning  of  the  word, 
wc  arrive  at  the  positive  conclusion,  that  immev-^ion  is  really 
baptism,  which  could  not  actually  be  tho  case,  if  b;;ptisni  is 
necessarily  any  thing  else  but  immersion.  We  are  led,  there- 
fore, by  classic  us  ;ge,  and  the  testimocies  of  critics  and  lexicog- 
raphers, to  the  irn  sistible  conclu.>ion,that  baptirm  is  immersion, 
and  notliine:  else.  jSow,  if  baptism  is  actually  immersion 
(wh.ich  is  admitted  by  all.)  and  if  sprinkling  is  actually  br!j)tism, 
tiien,  sprinkling  is  pctually  immersion.  And  who  will  contend 
tor  this  AnsuRDiTY  ?  yet  those  virtually  do,  who  contend  that 
sprinkling  is  baptism. 

But  I  proceed  to  the  next  proposition. 

n.  Our  secoxd  Argujient  is  derived  from  the  figurative 

USE    OE    THE    WORD. 

The  benuty  and  force  of  a  figure,  can  only  bo  seen,  as  it  refers 
to  the  literal  signitic;ition  ;  it  is  generally  used  for  illustration 
or  cmr.hasis.  "In  this  figurative  sense,  baplizo  is  used  in  tho 
New  Testament  to  signify  immersion  or  overwhf-lming."  Thus^ 
in  Luke  12  :  .'^O.  "1  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with,  undi 
how  am  I  straightened  til!  it  be  accomplished,"  redlring  evident., 
ly  to  the  fuflerings  he  wnp.  to  endu:e.  Dr.  Campl>ell  has  justly 
rendered  the  passairo,  "  I  hnvn-Ku  immersion  to  und;  rgo."  Dr. 
Doddridge  paraphrases  it,  "  I  know  I  shall  shortly  be  plunged  ia 


39 

the  most  overwhelming  distress.  Prof.  Stuart,  *'  I  am  about 
to  l)e  overwhelmed  with  suiferinfis,  and  I  am  greatly  distressed 
with  tho  prospect  of  them."  Similar  examples  are  found  in 
Mark  10:  :33,-39;  Matt.  3:  11,  &c.  We  see  our  Savior 
"sunk  in  deep  w, iters  of  affliction,"  overwhelmed  with  suffer, 
ings  by  "  the  waves  and  billows  of  anguish  rolling  over  him." 
This  evidenti}'  ref  rs  to  the  radical  moaning  of  the  word  ;  '♦  any 
idea,  short  of  a  ( omjilete  immersion,  is  tame  and  insipid." 

The  word  is  figurative'y  used  to  sigfiify  a  buri  il. — Rom,  6  : 
3,  4 — '"  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Je* 
BUS  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death  1  Therefore  we  are 
BURIED  wiTir  iiiM  KY  baptis:m  into  death  ;  that,  like  as  Christ 
was  rtiised  up  from  th«3  dead,  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even 
8  )  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life."  In  Col.  2:  12,  the 
same  figure  occurs  :  "  Buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also 
ye  are  risen  with  him  throu;ih  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God, 
wiio  hath  raised  him  from  the  deud."  "  It  seems  too  [)lain  for 
argument,  that  baptism  is  here  compared  to  a  burial,  in  which, 
the  believer,  being  '  d  .ad  to  sin,'  (Rom.  6:  2,)  is  '  buried' in 
baptism,  and  from  this  emblematic  grave,  he  rises  again  to 
a  new  and  spiritual  life.  The  figure  is  apt,  beautiful,  and  im- 
pressive, if  baptism  is  immersion  ;  but  it  has  no  apparent  per. 
tinency,  if  any  iWin-i  else  is  baptism." — The  important  bearing 
of  this  passage  will  be  seen,  as  "it  is  conceded  by  eminent 
Pedob.iptists  themselves,  that  ♦  the  mass  of  unprejudiced  read- 
ers,' would  perceive  in  it  'an  allusion  to  the  practic(;  of  baptiz- 
ing by  immersion.'  "  These  two  parallel  texts  contain  "  God*s 
own  explanation  of  his  own  ordinance.  And  here  we  may 
admire  the  divine  wisdom  and  goodness."  The  '*  translators 
of  the  Bible,  by  adopting,  not  translating  the  Greek  words  bap- 
tize ^.nd  baptism,  liave  hidden  themeaning  from  the  multitude. 
But  the  evidences  from  these  passages  cannot  be  hid — it  is  ob- 
vious to  the  most  iinlearned,  and  the  words,  '  Buried  with 
Christ  by  paptism'  may  continue  to  make,  as  a  Pedobaptist 
writer  says  they  have  heri'tofore  made,  more  Baptists  than  any 
other  passage  in  the  Bible.  The  Spirit  of  God,  through  this 
commentary  of  the  great  Apostle,  enables  all  men  to  judge  for 
themselves  in  this  matter." 

"The  expressions,  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  ^r\A  baptized 
into  his  death,  require  explanation.  The  first,  baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ,  means  to  be  baptized  into  an  acknowledgment  of 
Jesus  Christ,  with  an  implication  ofsuhj;^ction,  or  discipleship, 
to  him.  So  to  be  baptized  into  the  death  of  Christ,  is  to  be  bap- 
tized into  an  acknowkdgment  of  his  death,  and  into  an  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  obligations  resulting  from  that  death.'^ 


40 

*'  It  is  contended,  that  the  burying  mentioned  by  the  apoS' 
tic,  is  not  an  external  one,  but  an  internal,  a  moral  burying. 
Tiiis  opinion  seems  effectually  opposed  by  the  circumstances, 
that  the  burying  is  performed  hy  bapttsnif  an  external  rite.  *  * 
If  the  apostle  had  merely  said,  we  are  dead  and  buried  in  respect 
to  sin,  omitting  the  wordsy  hy  baptism,  his  language  would  re* 
qiii  re  a  different  interpretation.  But  the  apostle  himself  ex- 
plains what  he  meB.n3  by  burying,  when  he  adds  by  by  baptism,* 

So  Prof.  Chflse,  "  Buried  with  him  by  baptism,  buried  with 
him — how  ?  By  baptism,  the  apostle  answers.  Li  or  by  bap- 
tism,  then,  Paul  and  the  Christians  whom  he  addresses  were 
buried.  To  be  crucified  to  the  world,  or  dead  to  sin,  is  the 
character  of  the  christian  :  but  to  be  buried  with  Christ  by 
baptism,  is  the  appointed  emblematical prq/ession  of  that  charac- 
ter* The  apostle  does  not  teach,  that  believers  are  crucified 
with  Christ,  or  are  dead  with  him,  or  possess  a  mortified  temper, 
by  baptism.  To  have  such  a  state  of  soul,  to  be  dead  in  res- 
pect to  sin,  is  one  thing  ;  and  to  be  buried  with  Christ  by  bap- 
tism, is  quite  a  different  thing  ;  for  this  is  external,  whereas 
the  other  is  internal.  The  one  is  a  sign  ;  the  other,  the  thing 
signified." 

To  sustain  the  interpretation  given  above,  the  testimonies  of 
several  distinguished  Pedobaptist  writers  may  be  adduced. 

Rodenmuellei',  on  the  passage.  "  Immersion  in  the  water  of  baptism,  and  coming  forth 
out  of  it,  was  a  symbol  of  a  person's  renouncing  his  former  life,  and,  on  the  contrary,  be- 
ginning a  new  one.  The  learned  have  rightly  reminded  us,  that  on  account  of  this  em- 
blematical meaning  of  baptism,  the  rite  of  immersiom  ought  to  have  been  retained  in 
THE  Christian  church." 

Martin  Luther  after  speaking  of  baptism  as  a  symbol  of  death  and  resurrection,  says: 
*'On  this  account,  I  could  wish,  that  such  as  are  to  be  baptized,  should  be  completely 
immersed  into  water,  according  to  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and  the  signification  of  the 
ordinance  ;  as  also  without  doubt  it  was  instituted  by  Christ." 

Dr.  Knapp,  an  eminent  and  pious  German  divine,  whose  works  are  recommended  by 
Dr.  Woods,  speaking  of  the  passage  in  question,  thus  expresses  the  apostle's  idea  :  •'  We 
ARE  LIKE  Christ  buried  as  dead  persons,  by  baptism,  and  should  arise,  like  him,  to 
a  now  life."  He  adds,  "  The  imago  is  taken  here  from  baptized  persons,  as  they  were 
immeroed  (buried),  and  as  they  kmbrged  (rose  again). 

Dr.  Bloomfield,  "  one  of  tho  most  profound  living  biblical  scholars  of  Great  Britain,  and 
highly  commended  by  Prof  Stuart  as  a  learned  and  judicious  critic,  gives  this  paraphrase 
of  the  words,  "buried  with  him  by  baptism :"  "We  have  been  thus  buried  in  the 
waters  of  baptism."  "  He  adds,  "There  is  a  plain  allusion  to  the  ancient  gus- 
to .m  OF  baptism  by  immersion." 

Prof.  Lange.  "As  Christ  died,  so  we  die  (to  sin)  with  him  in  baptism.  Tho  body  is,  as 
it  were,  buried  under  water,  is  dead  with  Christ ;  the  plunging  under  water  represents 
death,  and  rising  out  of  it  the  resurrection  to  a  new  life.  A  more  striking  symbol  could  not 
be  chosen." 

The  Author  of  the  Free  Inquiry  on  baptism.  "This  baptism  of  John  and  that  of  the 
apostles  were  performed  in  precisely  the  same  way,"  i.  e,  the  candidate  was  com- 
pletely immerskd  under  water.  Speaking  of  Rom.  6 :  4,  and  Gal.  3 :  27,  he  says ; 
What  becomes  of  all  these  beautiful  images,  when,  as  at  the  prcicnt  day,  baptism  is  ad- 
ministered by  pouring  or  sprinkling  ?" 

Bloomfield  in  his  Critical  Digest  on  the  passage,  says  ;  "  There  is  here  plainly  a  refer- 
ence to  the  ancient  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion  ;  and  I  agree  with  Koopper  and  Ros- 
enmueller  that  there  is  reason  to  regret  it  should    Have  been  abandoned  in 

*  Ripley's  E.xamination  of  Stuart,  " 


41 

most  Christian  churches,  especially  ae  it  has  so  evidently  a  reference  to  the  mybtic  sense  of 
baptism." 

Dr.  Doddridge  (in  whose  words  we  have  Mr.  John  Wesley  and  Mr.  George  Whitfield, 
the  former  in  a  Note,  and  the  latter  in  a  sermon,  on  this  verse)  '•  Buried  with  him  in  bap- 
tism." "  It  seems  the  part  of  candor  to  confess,  that  here  is  an  allusion  to  the  mannuer  of 
baptizing  by  immersion." 

Dr.  Wall  (the  learned  author  of  that  famous  work,  "  the  History  of  Infant  Baptism,"  for 
which  he  received  the  thanks  of  the  whole  clergy  in  convocation,)  after  refering  to  several 
passages  of  scripture  which  he  deemed  "  undeniable  proofs,  that  the  baptized  person 
went  ordinarily  into  the  water,  and  sometimes  the  Baptist  too,  says :  We  should  not  know 
from  these  accounts  whether  the  wholebody  of  the  baptized  was  put  under  water,  head  and 
all,  were  it  not  for  two  later  proofs,  which  seem  to  me  to  pot  it  out  of  question.  One,  That 
St.  Paul  does  twice,  in  an  allusive  way  of  speaking,  call  baptism  a  burial.  The  other, 
"  The  custom  of  the  christians  in  the  near  succeeding  times,  which  being  more  largely  and 
particnlarly  delivered  in  books,  is  known  to  have  been  generally,  or  ordinarily,  a  total 

IMMERSION." 

Similar  testimonies  to  these  are  given  by  Archbishop  Tillot^on.  Archbishop  Seeker, 
Dr.  Sam.  Clarke,  Dr.  Wells,  Assembly  of  Divines,  Dr.  Macknight,  Dr.  Towerson,  Neander^ 
Tboluck,  and  a  multitude  of  others. 

As  Dr.  Wail  has  alluded  to  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
christians,  we  will  just  give  the  testimony  of  a  few  of  the 
Fathers,  who  evidently  refer  to  this  passage,  and  more  may  be 
found  under  the  4th  head,  i.  e.  the  practice  of  the  ancient 
church. 

Justin  Martyr  says  :  "We  represent  our  Lord's  sufferings  and  resurrection  by  baptism 

IN    A    POOL." 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  "  You  were  led  to  abath,  as  Christ  was  conveyed  to  the  sepul- 
chre, and  were  thrice  immersed,  to  signify  Christ's  three  day's  burial." 

Theodoret,  on  this  passage,  "Baptism  is  a  t3'pe  of  our  Lord's  death  ;"  and  in  Heb.  6  : 
2,  "  In  holy  baptism  we  receive  the  type  of  the  resurrection." 

Tbeophylact  says  :  "  Baptism  tj-pities  by  immersion  the  death,  by  emersion  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ." 

John  Damascene  ;  "  Baptism  represents  the  (deloi)  death  of  our  Lord." — "  it  is  a  type 
(tupos)  of  his  death  ;" — "  the  first  baptism  was  the  flood  i" — "the  old  man  was  entirely 
buried  in  watar." 

Council  of  Toledo,  "  The  immersion  in  water  (in  aquis  mersio)  is,  as  it  were,  the  des- 
cent to  HaBes,  and  the  emersion  from  the  water,  the  resurrection." 

Photius,  quoted  by  Oecumeuicus  or  Rom.  6:  4,  and  Athanasius,  give  the  same  explana- 
tion. So  also  the  bishops,  Gelasius,  Gregory  and  Pclagius,  in  there  rituals."  These  exam- 
ples might  be  multiplied  to  a  great  extent. 

"  We  cannot  forbear  noticing  here  a  novel  interpretation  of 
Rom.  6  :  4,  (buried  with  him  in  baptism,)  which  is  beginning 
to  gain  currency  among  certain  American  writers.  It  is  grave- 
ly argued,  that  Paul,  in  that  passage,  had  no  allusion  to  the 
mode  of  baptism.  See  Stuart  on  the  passage,  and  those  who 
have  copyed  from  him.  This  is  a  discovery.  The  quotations 
from  the  early  Fathers,  and  from  the  later  German  critics" — 
preceding,  as  well  those  succeeding,  "  will  show,  that  none  of 
them  were  ever  blessed  with  this  extraordinary  illumination. 
It  were  easy  to  prove,  that  the  biblical  scholars  of  all  nations, 
during  the  whole  period  intervening  between  the  Christian 
Fathers  and  the  modern  German  school,  have  all  of  them  grop. 
ed  their  way  in  equal  darkness.  Here,  then,  we  have  the  re- 
markable fact,  that  while  two,  or  three  American  controversial, 
ists, — in  itself  a  suspicious  circumstance,- — invent  a  new  inter- 


42 

prctation  for  a  passaj^e,  that  overthrows  all  their  far-fetched 
ar<:iiments  in  favor  of  asparsion  in  haptism,  the  whoU;  liost  of 
learned  critics,  from  Justin  Martyr  down  to  Winer,  Neander, 
Olsliausen  and  Tlio!uck,  stand  arrayed  against  ihcm  in  an  un- 
broken phalanx.  Will  it  be  believed,  that  this  portion  of  a 
book,  \rritten  for  the  common  people  (who,  by  the  way,  have 
never  fiiled  of  appreh(;nding  the  true  sense  of  this  passage,) 
has  been  subjected  to  all  (jlasses  of  mun  in  different  ages  of  tho 
world,  in  different  nations,  and  in  all  cultivated  languages  for 
eighteen  centuries,  and  that  no  man  was  ever  found  to  open 
the  seal  and  dissect  n.  figure,  until  our  eniightcned  opponents 
succeeded  ?  We  must  not  omit,  in  this  connection,  to  mention 
a  circumstance,  which  scits  the  views  of  the  early  church,  in 
regard  to  the  point  now  under  discussion,  in  a  clear  light.  We 
RJlude  to  the  fact,  that  the  great  body  of  the  ancient  church 
reserved,  except  in  «*,ases  of  peril,  all  the  baptisms  of  the  year, 
until  the  festival  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  If 
there  were  other  times  of  baptism,  they  were  regarded  as  less 
solemn  and  appropriate,  than  tho  time  of  the  Passover  or  Easter. 
Now  the  whole  ground  of  thisunivcrsal  practice  w.isthat  Paul, 
in  their  view,  dechired  baptism  to  be  an  emblem  of  death  and 
tlie  resurrection.  Here  the  act  speaks  louder  than  words. 
Though  there  is  no  controversy  among  those  who  profess  to  bo 
acquainted  wilh  the  subject,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  adduce  a 
few  passages  by  way  oIiM'oof."'^ 

TertuUian,  De  Bap.  19,  says :  "This  is  the  more  appropriate  day,  as  being  the  day  of 
our  Lord  s  suftoriiigs,  inio  which  we  are  I)aptiy.ed."  This  hentjinent  prevailed  to  such  aa 
extreme,  thil  Gregory,  Nazianzen,  B;isil  and  Chry,«ostom,  were  oi)ligr^d,as  wise  men,  to 
labor  to  show,  tiiat  any  otner  time,  t'lough  ie.>s  iiiterestinjj,  was  nevertheless  perfectly 
proper  for  haptism.  Tliose  of  who;n  Gregory  speaks  in  his  40th  Oiat.,  i)referrcd  in  bap- 
tism "to  rise  with  Christ  "n  the  rksokkk  tI"N  i»ay."  Basil,  De  Spiritu  Sancto,  "27, 
Bays;  The  whole  jieriod  of  fifty  days  (from  the  Passover  or  Easter,  to  Pentecost)  is  a  me- 
morial of  our  resurrection. "  'Ihu-,  even  when  tlie  day  of  Pentecost  was  fixed  upon  for 
b  ptism,  as  it  some  tun  a  was,  though  l;>s  frequently,  itwiisaljthe  rame  time  a  reminiscence 
of  the  two  scenes  of  the  resurrection  of  Chriht,  and  of  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Chyso-itom,  1  Horn,  on  Acts,  while  headinits,  that  thn  '  grace  itself  of  baptism  is  the  same 
on  Pcntcco.--t,  gives  the  j)reference  to  Ka&ter  or  the  passovcr,  because  the  mind  is  then 
impressed  with  "lofter  rrNiMXEns."  Socr,;tes,  5,  22,  speaks  of  those  who  baptize 
only  oil  tlio  (lay  of  the  Passovcr.  Siricius,  bishop  of  Rome,  says  :  "  this  ordinance  is  ob- 
served with  all  the  thukchks  at  the  Paschal  festival  and  Pentecost."  Leo  the  Great 
censures  certain  individuals  'for  the  irrational  innovation  of  ba])tizin!r  at  any  other  time 
THan  that  i)f  the  Passover.'  .The  council  of  Anxerrein,  578,  prohd>ited  baptism  'at  any 
OTHER  TIME  tlian  Eastcf.'  The  council  of  Matiscon  did  the  s;ime  in  583.  J.  A.  Schmid,  in 
liis  Hist.  Test,,  p.  121,  says;  '  In  the  Latin  church,  the  ninth  hour,  i.e.  So'clock  P.  M., 
this  festival  was  de>signated  for  baptism,  because  it  was  at  that  hour  that  Thrist  died,  whi)sc 
death  was  imitated  in  baptism."  Augusti,  3,  7,  says;  '  From  the  earliest  times,  this  day 
was  selected  for  baptism,  as  special  importance  was  attached  to  baptism  iulo  the  death  of 
Christ." 

We  have  adduced  these   testimonies,  from  history,  because 
\vcd(!em  them    decisive,  not  n  note  of  remonstrance  in  all  the 

V  *The  C'iristian  Review,  edited  by  Prof.  Sears,  of  Newton,  Mass.,  published  by  Gould, 
Keudal,  and  Lincoln,  Boston. 


43 

Fathers,  have  we  ever  seen  against  them.  That  the  ancient 
fathers  understood  the  design  of  baptism  to  be  a  symbolical 
representation  of  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  we 
think  must  be  manifest  from  their  testimonies.  Whenever 
they  speak  of  baptism,  they,  almost  always  point  to  i\\Q  deaths 
burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ. 

III.  The  places  selected  fou  the  admixisthation  of  tub 

ORDIXA^sCE,  A]N'D  THE  CIECU^ISTAXCES  COXXECTED  WITH  ITS 
PERFORMANCE,  WHERE  THEY  ARE  DESCRIBED,  FURXISHES 
ANOTHER    ARGUMENT    IN    FAVOR    OF    IMMEIISION. 

"  John  the  Baptist  did  baptize  in  the  wilderness,  *  *  * 
and  there  went  out  unto  him  all  the  land  of  Jude^,  *  *  * 
and  were  all  baptized  of  him  in  the  river  Jordan.^'*  Here  it  ia 
explicitly  stated,  that  those  who  were  baptized  of  him,  were 
baptized  in  the  river  Jordan.  If  the  idea  advanced  by  some, 
that  the  preposition  (en)  in  may  mean  at,  yet  why  should  he 
resort  to  a  river  at  ail  "  excepting  that  immersion  was  practi- 
sed."f  **  i)Ut  Prof.  Robinson  a  Pedobaptist,  and  the  learned  au- 
thor of  the  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament,  translates  the 
Greek  particle  (en)  in  or  into,  in  all  the  instances  in  which 
John's  baptism  is  spoken  of.  Jesus  was  baptized  by  John  i/i 
(eis)  Jordan;  or,  as  Prof.  Robinson  translates, " into  the  river 
Jordan,'' J: 

Dr.  Canipl)ejl  in  his  notes  on  MathewS:  11,  makes  the  following  statement :  "In  water — 
in  the  HolySpirix,  (en  udati — cu  ag^ie  pneiunati.)  English  translation,  with  water — with 
the  Holy  Ghoit.  Vulgate,  {that  is  Latin  traualation,]  in  aqua — iu  Spiritu  Sancto.  Thu?, 
also,  the  Syria  and  other  ancient  versions.  lam  sorry  to  observe  that  the  Po{>:sh  transla- 
tors from  the  Vulgate,  liave  shown  greater  veneration  for  the  style  of  that  version,  than  the 
generality  of  the  Protestant  tran.^lators  ha\  e  shown  for  that  of  the  original.  For  in  this, 
the  Latin  is  not  more  explicit  than  the  Greek.  Yet  so  inconsistent  are  the  interpreters 
iust  mentioned,  that,  none  of  them  have  scrupled  to  render  (en  to  Jordane,)  in  the  sixth 
verse,  in  Jordan  ;  though,  nothing  can  be  plainer,  than  that,  if  there  be  any  iucoagruit\-  iu 
the  ex])ressiou  in  water ;  this,  in  Jordan,  must  be  equally  incongruous.'  But  they  have 
seen  that  the  preposition,  in,  coidd  not  be  avoided  "without  adopting  a  circumlocution, 
and  saying,  with  the  water  of  Jordan,  which  would  have  made  their  deviation  from  the  text 
loo  glaring."  ^ 

3Ir.  Hervy,  when  contending  that  en,  signifies  in  ;  adds,  I  can  prove  it  to  ha^  e  beeniu 
peaceable  possession  of  this  signification  two  tliousand  years.  "  Every  one  knows,"  he  ob- 
serves in  another  place,  "  that  with,  is  not  the  native,  obvious,  and  literal  meaning;  but  rather 
a  meaning  swayed,  influenced,  moulded  by  the  preceding  or  following  word." — Letters  to 
Mr.  Wesley. 

"  111  four  of  the  first  versions  of  the  Bible  into  English,  we  find  these  words  rendered 
literally  '  in  water  ;'   but  the  expression  not  suiting  the  prevailing  custom,  it  was  afterward 

*  Dr.  Shaw  says,  "  before  it  enters  the  Dead  Sea,  its  ordinary  breadth  is  about  thirty 
yards,  but  it  is  exceedingly  deep,  even  to  the  brink  of  its  inner  bank."  It  was  so  deep  that 
a  miracle  was  performed  to  make  a  passage  for  Israel,  (Josh,  iii :  9,  17,)  and  for  Elijah, 
(2  Kings  vi :  5).  It  was  in  tliis  deep  ri-ver,  that  a  young  man  lost  his  axe,  (2  Kings  vi:  1,  5,). 
Iu  this  river  Na,aman  dipped  (baptized)  himself  se\  eu  times  (2  Kings  v  :  14,).  Reader, 
surclj'  this  was  deep  enough  for  baptizing. 

t  Prof.  Stuart. 

i  Vide  hex.  on  the  word  Baptize,  2  (a).    See  Bloomficld,  note  upon  the  passage. 


44 

rendered  '  with  water.'     It  is  in,— in  the  Vulgate,  Syriac,  Arabic  and  Ethiopic,  and  several 
more  modern  versions. 

Tyndal,  one  of  the  first  four  translators,  says  :  "I  baptize  you  in  water,  in  token  of  re- 
pentance." 

"  And  John  was  also  baptizing  in  Enon,  nrar  Sulim,  because 
there  was  much  water  there  :  and  they  c;iine  and  were  baptized." 
(John  3  ;  23.)  Now  the  reason  is  expressly  slated,  'Ahy  he  se. 
selected  this  place,  because  the  much  water  afforded  (kcility  for 
the  performance  of  the  rite.  This  pas^.i^e  is  plain  and  obvi- 
ous, and,  though  it  mioht  be  susceptible  of  tlie  inmslalion,  Be- 
za  and  others  contend  for,  i.  e.  (many  streams  or  rivulets  )  Still 
it  would  afford  conveniences  for  immersion.  TIk-  Holy  Spirit 
does  not  say  John  made  choice  of  this  spot,  to  accnmmodnte 
the  people  with  water  to  use, — nor  their  beasts  to  drink, — but 
on  account  of  its  convenience  for  baptizing.  But  Prof.  Rip- 
ley has  shown,  with  a  clearness,  force  and  !»re:ision  v^hich ought 
ever  to  settle  the  question,  tiiat  our  translation  io  c>»rr-.'ct,  and 
not  to  be  discarded.*  "See  Jer.  41  ;  12,  conip.;rv  (i  2  Samuel 
2  :  12,  13, 14.  On  which  read  Robinson's  C  Imet,  under  the 
word  GiBEON.  Also  consult  Rev.  1:  5.  19:  6,  where  the 
same  words  are  usred  to  designate  the  oceans 

The  case  of  the  Ethiopean  Eunuch  next  ciaii.is  our  atten- 
tion. "As  they  went  on  their  way,  they  came  unto  certain 
\vater,  *  *  and  they  went  down  both  into  the  water,  both 
Philip  and  the  Eunuch  ;  and  he  baptized  him.  And  whin  they 
were  come  up  out  of  the  water,  the  spirit  of  the  l.ord  Ciiught 
away  Philip."  (\cts  8:  36 — 39)  Now  for  wi).a  purpose 
did  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  go  doivn  both  into  the  water,  it'  it  were 
not  that  he  might  immerse  him.  Now  the  impression,  which 
would  naturally  rest  upon  the  mind,  of  a  phiin  m;ii  v,  hen 
reading  this  account,  must  evidently  be  the  true  one  iUu  it  ia 
fiometimes  said  that  the  preposition  (eis)  here  is  oftv  r*  r.  i.di  red 
to.  But  what  did  they  go  down  to  the  water  ■  v  i;  i  «/i  for 
immersion.     Hear 

Dr.  Doddrige. — "  It  would  be  very  unnatural  to  suppose,  that  they  woat  ('.oaa  to  the 
water,  merely  that  Philip  might  take  up  a  little  water  in  his  band  to  pour  on  tiio  Kuiiuch. 
A  person  of  his  dignity  had,  no  doubt,  many  vessels  in  his  baggage,  [by  vihicb  \vi:tci- might 
be  brought  into  his  ciiariot,]  on  such  a  journey,  through  a  desert  country  ;  a  pjeciulion 
absolutely  necessary  for  travelling  in  those  parts,  and  never  omitted  by  tiom.  —Sec  Dr. 
Shaw's  Travels. 

The  criticism"  on  the  Greek  preposition,  in  thi  ^  far 

from  just  -f     "  The  verb  here  translated  went  down   ■•■  •'  nv- 

ed  by  the  preposition  used  in  this  passage,  inchi 


ilMl- 


*  So  Olshansen,  De  Wette,  Kuinoel,  Grolius,  Bloomfield,  Doddridg(>,  ; 
t  Consult  Prof.  Ripley's  examination  of  Stuart,  Boston,  1833.     Also,  i; 
Katabaiaon,  (,a;  Anabainon  (a).    Likewise  Dodridge,  ou  the  passage. 


45 

formly,  in  the  New  Testament,  the  idea  of  entrance  into  tha 
place  mentioned,  e.  g.  "Jesus  went  down  to  Capernaum."  A- 
gain  it  is  said,  '*  Jacob  went  down  to  Egypt."  Is  it  not  clearly 
implied  here,  that  Jesus  went  iwto  Capernaum?  Jacob,  into 
Egypt  and  not  merely  to  the  borders  of  it  ?  So  in  common  par- 
lance, "  we  say  of  a  man,  he  has  gone  to  New  York, — meaning 
he  has  gone  into  the  city  to  buy  goods." 

IV.  The  practice  of  the  early  Christians,  and  op  the 
Christian  world  for  many  centuries,  shows  that  they 
understood  baptism  to  mean  immersion. 

It  may  not  be  wholly  inapposite  to  state  here,  that  the  ar- 
gument from  church  history,  is  not  the  one  on  which  we  place 
our  chief  dependence.  VVe  claim  to  belong  to  a  denomination 
that  regards  the  Bible  as  our  only  and  sufficient  rule  of  faith 
and  practice  :  and  to  our  mind,  the  Bible  is  perfectly  clear  on 
this  subject.  We  have  also  a  satisfactory  comment,  of  what 
our  Savior  taught  on  this  subject,  in  the  practice  of  the  early 
Christians,  who.  in  all  probability,  regulated  their  practice  by 
his  instructions,  and  the  apostle's  example. 

The  question  naturally  arises  here,  how  did  the  early  Chris- 
tians understand  the  word  and  represent  it  in  their  practices  t 
Now,  "  he  that  hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear." 

Barnabas,  the  companion  of  Pauf,  (Acts  13  :  2,)  says,  in  bis  Epistle,  speaking  of 
baptism,  ••  We  descend  into  the  water,  and  comb  out  ok  it." 

In  the  Pastor  of  Hermus,  saluted  by  Paul,  (Rom.  16:  14,)  it  is  stated:  "  Men  de3» 
cended  <nto  the  water,  bound  to  death  -,  but  ascended  out  of  it,  sealed  to  life." 

Justin  Martyr,  in  giving  the  pagans  a  general  account  of  Christian  doctrines,  and  prac- 
tices, says :  "  Those  wlio  believe,  are  led  to  some  place  where  there  is  water,  and 
there  bathe  in  the  water."  In  another  place,  he  says :  "  We  represent  our  Lord's  suf^ 
firings  and  resurrection,  by  baptism  in  a  pool." 

"  There  can  be  no  doubt  what  is  meant  by  bathing  in  a  pool,  or  swimming-place,  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  represent  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  This  is  not  the 
description  of  any  one  case  of  baptisnj,  but  a  universal  description," 

Tertullian. — "  We  are  immersed  in  vitater," — '*  let  down  into  the  water  and 
DIPPED."  "  Peter  immersed  in  the  tiber  "  "  It  is  one  thing  to  be  sprinkled,  (as- 
pergi,)  by  the  violence  of  the  waves  in  a  boat,  and  another  to  be  dipped,  (tingui,)  in 
a  religious  ordinance.  It  is  indifferent  whether  one  is  baptized  in  the  sea  or  iii  a  pool, 
in  a  river  or  a  fountain,  in  a  lake  or  the  bed  of  a  river.*' 

Apostolical  Constitutions. — '•  Baptism  relates  to  the  death  of  Christ :  the  water  an- 
swers to  THE  GRAVE',  the  iM  mcrsion  represents  our  dying  with  h'm:  the  Emersion, 
our  rising  with  him." 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem.— "  He  who  is  immersed  in  water  and  baptized,  is  surrounded 
with  water  on  all  s.des," 

Basil  the  Great,—"  The  bodies  of  those  that  are  baptized,  are,  as  it  were,  buried 

IN    WATER." 

Grysostom.— ••  AVe,  as  in  a  sepulchre,  "  immer5ing  our  heads  in  water,  theoldman  is" 
buried,  and  sinking  dov^^n,  the  whole  is  concealed  at  once."  "  He  speaks  of  baptism  in 
inuiunerable  instances  in  13  folio  volumes,  but  never  alludes  to  sprinkling." 

Leo,  bishop  of  Rome. — "  True  immersion  represents  the  three  lay's  burial  of  Christ.'* 

Jerome. — "  Three  times  we  are  immerged,"  «&c, 

Augustine —"  Rightly  are  ye  immerged  three  times,  who  have  received  baptism  isi 
Ihe  name  of  Christ." 

These  are  but  a  few  of  the  multitude  of  testimonies  that 
might  be  quoted,  had  we  space. 


40 

"  To  these  passages  from  the  Christian  Fathers,  we  subjoin 
the  testimony  of  some  of  the  modern  German  critics.  We  be- 
speak particular  attention  to  these,  not  only;  on  account  of 
their  impartiality,  as  they  have  no  interest  in  the  controversy, 
but,  on  account  of  their  being  the  very  highest  authority  in  lan- 
guage and  antiquities." 

ThoUick,  on  Romans  6:  4. — *'  In  order  to  nnderstand  the  figiirjttive  use  of  baptism, 
wo  must  I)ear  in  mind  the  welt,  knowv  fact,  tlint  the  candidate,  in  tlie  primitive 
eliurch,  WAS  immersed  i\  water,  and  raised  out  of  it  arain."  In  his  Manuscript 
liCctmc  on  Col,  2:  12,  he  says  ;  "  The  candidate  was  immersed,  and  not  sprinkletl,  as 
with  us," 

Winer. — "  In  the  apostolical  age,  baptism  was  by  immersion-,  as  its  symbolical  ex- 
plaJiation  shows." 

IJretsthneider. — "  Tlie  apostolical  church  hantized  only  by  immersion." 

"  Schleusuer,  Wahl,  and  Bretschneider,  the  three  great  iVew  Tcstaraont  lexicogra- 
phers of  Germany,  limit  baptism,  as  a  sacred  ordinance  to  immersion." 

Halin. — "  According  TO  APOSTOLICAL  instruction  and  example,  baptism  was  per- 
foruied  by  immersing  the  whole  man." 

Prof.  Lange. — '•  Baptism  in  the  apostolical  age,  was  a  proper  baptism,,  the  immersiox 
or  THE  WHOLE  BODY  IN  WATER.  Pluxging  UNDER  WATER  represents  deatli,  and  rising 
ODt  of  it,  the  resurrection  to  a  new  life." 

Fritsch. — "  With  infant  baptism,  still  another  change  in  the  outward  form  of  bap- 
tism was  introduced,  tliat  of  sprinkling  with  water,  instead  of  the  former  prac- 
tice OF  immersion." 

With  these  agree  the  testimonies  of  Olshanson,  Pcngel,  Usteri,  Rheinwolds-,  Schioz, 
and  Starck. 

I  will  here  add  the  testimonies  of  some  of  the  best  historians. 

Neander,  says  -.  "  Baptism  was  originally  by  immersion  ;  to  this  form  various  com- 
parisons of  the  apostle  Paul  allude.'- 

Cinerieke. — "  Baptism  was  originally  aduunistered  by  immersion." — "Waddington 
calls  "  immersion,  the  oldest  form  of  baptism."  Mosheim,  Dnpin,  Miiner,  Greg- 
ory, Veneina,  and  indeed  all  the  best  historians  affirm  that  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
churches  was  immersioJi. 

"After  these  testimonies,  you  will  be  prepared  to  appreciate 
the  concession  of  Prof.  Stuart,  who,  quoting  Augusti,  says  : 
"  It  isa  thing  made  out,"  viz:  the  ancient  practice  of  immersion. 
"Iknow,"  continues  the  Prof., "of  no  one  usage  which  seemsto 
be  more  clearly,  and  certainly  made  out.  I  cannot  see  how  it 
is  possible  for  any  candid  man  who  examines  this  subject,  to 
to  deny  this."  He  finally  comes  to  this  conclusion,  "that 
from  the  earliest  ages  of  which  we  have  any  account,  subse- 
quent to  the  apostolic  age,  and  downward  for  several  centuries, 
the  churches  generally  practised  baptism  by  immersion,  per- 
haps hi/  immersion  of  the  whole  person ;  and,  that  the  only  ex- 
ceptions to  this  mode  which  were  usually  allowed,  were  in  cases 
of  immediate  and  imminent  danger,  where  immersion  could  not 
bo  practised."  . 

It  is  a  fact,  notorious  in  history,  that  the  whole  Christian 
church  for  the  space  of  1300  years,  practised  immersion,  except 
in  cases  of  sickness.  This  can  be  established  by  the  testimo- 
nies of  Pcdobaptists.  Hear  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Whitby,  in 
bis  exposition  of  Romans. 


4^ 

Dr.  Wliitby,  (author  of  a  Commentarj',  and  more  than  forty  other  learned  works,)  says  : 
"  It  beiug^  so  expressl  <  declared  here,  and  Colos.  2:  12,  that  we  are  buried  with  Christ 
i^»  BAPTISM,  by  being  buried  under  water,  and  the  argument  to  oblige  us  to  a  conformity 
to  bis  death,  b}-  dying  to  sin,  being  taken  lience ;  and  this  immersion  being  religious- 
ly observed  BY  ALL  Christians  for  THIRTEEN  CEXTURIES,  and  approved  by 
our  church,  and  the  change  of  it  into  sprinkling,  even  without  any  allowance  from  the 
author  of  this  institution,  or  any  license  from  any  council  of  the  church,  being  that 
which  the  Romanist  still  urgeth  to  justify  the  refusal  of  the  cup  to  the  laity;  it  were  to. 
be  wished  that  tliis  custom  might  be  again  of  general  use,  and  aspersion  only  permitted, 
as  of  old,  incases  of  Clinici,  or  in  present  danger  of  death." 

Bossuet. — "  We  are  able  to  make  it  appear,  by  acts  of  councils,  and  bv  the  ancient 
rituals,  that,  for  THIRTEEN  HUNDRED  YEARS,  baptism  was  thus  [by  immersipii} 
administered  throughout  the  whole  church,  as  far  as  possible." 

Stackhouse. — "Several  authors  have  shown  that  we  read  no  where  in  Scripture  of  any 
one's  being  baptized,  but  by  immersion,  and  from  the  acts  of  councils  and  ancient  rituals 
have  proved,  that  this  immersion  continued  (as  much  as  possible)  to  be  used  for  THIR.  ■ 
TEEN  HUNDRED  YEARS  after  Christ." 

Brenner,  a  Roman  Catholic  writer,  states,  "  that  THIRTEEN  HUNDRED  YEARS 
was  baptism  generally  and  ordinarily  performed  by  the  immersion  of  a  man  underwater, 
and  only  on  extraordinary  occasions  was  sprinkling  or  aftusiou  permitted.  These  latter 
methods  are  called  in  question,  and  even  prohibited. — Stuart,  p.  361. 

Enc\-clopedia  Americana,  s^^eaking  of  Baptism,  saj^s  :  "  that  it  is  dippinGj  immersing, 
from  the  Greek  baptizo." 

Again,  "  In  the  time  of  the  apostles,  the  form  of  baptism  was  very  simple.  The  per-, 
son  to  be  baptized  was  dipped  in  a  river  or  vessel,  with  the  words  which  Christ  had 
ordered,  and,  to  express  more  fully  his  change  of  character,  generally  adopted  a  new 
name.  The  immersion  of  the  whole  body  was  omitted  only  in  the  case  of  the  sick,  who, 
could  not  leave  their  beds.  In  this  case  sprinkling  was  substituted,  which  was  called 
CLiNER  BAPTISM.  The  Greek  ciuirch  as  well  as  the  schismatics  in  the  East  retained  the 
custom  of  immersing  the  whole  body ;  but  the  Western  church  adopted  in  the  13th  cen- 
tury the  mode  of  baptism  by  sprinkling  which  has  been  continued  b3-  the  Protestants,  the 
Baptists  (q.  v.)  only  excepted." 

Edinburgh  Encyclopedia,  edited  bj-  Sir  David  Brewster,  allowed  to  be  one  of  the  best 
scholars  of  the  age,  states  :  "  that  the  word  baptizo  means  to  immerse,  or  Paul  would 
never  have  said  that  we  are  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism  and  that  immersion  was  prac- 
tised b}'  all  christians  until  the  beginning  of  the  fourtcentli  centurj.  That  the  Council  of 
Ravanna,  held  in  1311  first  sanctioned  sprinkling;  but  corrupt  as  was  the  church  of 
Rome,  whose  couacilthis  was,  it  did  not  enjoin  sprinkling,  but  merely  said  that  it  was 
admissable." 

Encyclopedia  E:clesiastica. — (This  splendid  work  published,  A.  D.  1835,  under  the 
patronage  of  the  highest  authorities  in  the  British  nation,  both  in  church  and  state,  after 
stating  the  reasons  now  urged  in  defence  of  sprinkling,  proceeds,)  "  Whatever  weight, 
however,  may  be  in  these  reasons  as  a  defence  for  the  present  practice  of  sprinkling,  it  is 
evident  that,  during  the  first  ages  of  the  church,  and  for  many  ccnturies  afterwards,  the 
practice  of  immersion  prevailed;  and  which  seems  indeed  never  to  be  departed  from, 
except  whore  it  was  administered  to  a  person  at  the  point  of  death,  or  upon  a  bed  of 
sickness, — which  was  considered  indeed  as  not  giving  tlie  party  tlie  full  privileges  of  bap- 
tism,— or  when  there  was  not  a  sufficient  supply  of  water.  Except  in  the  above  cases, 
the  custom  was  to  wp  or  immerse  the  whole  body."  Hence  St.  Barnabas,  says  :  "  We  go 
down  into  the  water,''  &c.  «fec. — Article  Baptism. 

Prof.  Stuart,  states  on  the  authority  of  Joliu  p'loyer,*  "that  the  English  church  prac- 
tised immersion  down  to  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century;  after  which  a 
change  to  the  ra?thod  of  spriukling  took  place.  But  though,  sprinkling  is  now  the  univer- 
sal practice  with  them,  their  liturgy  has  always  required  immersion  e.Kcept  in  cases  of 
weakness." 

It  is  universally  admitted,  by  all  intelligent  and  candid  Pe-. 
dobaptists,  that  the  Oriential .Greek  Church,  which  comprises  a 
large  portion  of  Christendom,  have  always  practised  tUe  rite 
of  immersion.  Says  Prof.  Stuart,  "  The  mode  of  baptism  by 
immersion,  the  Oriential  church  has  always  continued  to  pre- 
serve,  even  down  to  the  present  time.  The  members  of  this 
church  are  accustomed  to  call  the  members  of  the  westeiA 

*  In  a  work  of  John  Floyer  on  Cold  Bathing,  p.  50, 


48 

churches,  sprinkled  christians,  hy  way  of  ridicule  and  contempt. 
They  maintain  that  baptizo  can  mean  nothing  but  immerge  ; 
and  that  hapfism  by  sprinkling  is  as  great  a  solecism  as  immer- 
sion  by  sprinkling ;  and  they  claim  to  themselves  the  honor  of 
having  preserved  the  ancient  sacred  rite  of  the  church  free 
from  change  and  from  corruption,  which  would  destroy  its  sig- 
nificancy."  The  reader  will  here  recollect  that  the  New 
Testament  was  written  in  Greek,  and  that  the  Greeks  them- 
selves declare  that  Baptizo  means  to  immerse  and  nothing  else, 
and  that  to  talk  of  'baptism  by  sprinkling,'  is  as  inconsistent 
as  to  talk  of  '  immersion  by  sprinkling.'  This  testimony  is 
entitled  to  the  greatest  credit.*  And  however  great  a  change 
the  Greek  language  may  have  undergone  with  respect  to  the 
meaning  of  many  words,  we  have  seen  by  a  reference  to  classic 
usage  and  the  practice  of  the  ancient  church,  that  baptizo 
(whi(ih  is  still  vernacular  to  the  modern  Greeks,)  has  under- 
gone no  change.  This  testimony  of  the  Greeks  appears  to  me 
decisive,  and  I  do  not  see  how  any  candid  man  can  reject  it. 

Finally,  it  must  be  admitted,  by  the  most  learned  of  all  de- 
nominations,  that  from  the  Apostolic  age  downwards,  we  havo 
an  unbroken  chain  of  evidence  showing  that  immersion,  and 
immersion  only,  was  practised  by  all  christians  for  1300  years  ; 
and  in  England  for  1600.  The  only  deviation,  or  exception 
to  this  practice,  was  in  cases  of  extreme  sickness,  when  pouring 
or  affusion  was  practised  as  a  substitute.  This  was  done  on 
the  ground  that  baptism  was  essential  to  salvation  ;-\  and  though 
it  was  not  regarded  as  regular  baptism,  yet  it  was  hoped  that 
by  the  indulgence  of  God  it  would  be  accepted,  and  the  soul  of 
the  person,  who  thus  received  baptism,  would  be  saved. — 
This  was  resorted  to  only  from  the  exigency  of  the  case,  im- 
mersion not  being  practicable;  anil  it  was  never  defended,  in 
the  early  ages  of  the  church,  on  the  ground  of  tradition,  or 
Apostolical  example,  or  of  a  license  from  the  Head  of  the 
Church. 

It  may  be  interesting,  and  perhaps  edifying   to  some  of  our 

*  Mr.  Rol)inson  the  historian,  very  wisely  remarks  :  "  The  testimony  of  the  Greeks,  is 
an  authority  for  the  mcauing  of  baptizo,  infinitelj^  preferable  to  that  of  European  lexicog- 
rapbcrs ;  so  that  a  man  who  is  ohlifjed  to  trust  human  testimony,  and  who  baptizes  by  im- 
mersion because  the  Greeks  do,  understands  a  Greek  word  exactly  as  the  Greeks  thcm- 
eelves  understand  it ;  and  in  this  case  the  Greeks  ai-e  unexceptional  ffuidcs," 

tThe  first  case  of  Clinic.  Baptism  that  Dr.  Wall  could  discover,  was  tlie  case  of  No- 
vatian,  about  A.  D.  a^O.  Euschius  records :  that  this  man  while  unbapti:ieJ,  fell  into  a 
dangerous  disease,  and  because  he  was  very  like  to  die,  was  baptized  in  the  bed  where 
he  lay,  or  water  poured  all  over  him,  "  if  that  might  he  termed  bapiit'ni." 

The  validity  of  this  baptism  was  afterwards  called  in  question,  and  the  church  was 
divided  on  the  subject.  Sprinkling  or  aflTusion  for  baptism,  has  been  the  cause,  from  firat 
to  last,  of  many  contentions  and  divisions  in  the  ciiurch. 


49 

friends  here,  as  well  as  yourself,  lo  know  how  rantisiri 
(sprinkling)  is  supported  in  our  country.  As  a  specimen,  in 
addition  to  those  made  by  Dr.  Dwight  and  Barnes,  we  cite  the 
following  unfounded  assertions,  a  part  of  which  are  taken  fronn 
Dr.  Miller's  work  on  Baptism,  and  the  residue  are  a  specimen 
of  what  are  contained  in  a  tract,  entitled  "  The  Scripture  Di- 
rectory to  Baptism,"  "by  a  Layman:" 

"Thus  far,  says  he,  "we  liave.pursucd  our  inquiry:  and  after  a  careful  perusal  and 
examination  of  every  part  of  tliR  scriptures  which  had  any  kind  of  bearing  upon  this 
subject,  we  have  never  been  able  to  find  any  pre:.'ept,  warrant,  example,  or  practiee,  of 
Chrisi  or  bis  Aposiles,  whi.:h  look  any  thuig  like  dipiting.  And  from  all  the  liooks  we 
have  ever  read  upon  the  subjei-t,  on  any  side,  we  have  never  seen  a  quotation  from  any 
of  the  fathers  or  writers  of  any  age.  that  there  was  ever  any  such  thing  thought  of, 
hinted  at,  or  written  about,  as  immeusio.v,  in  any  place,  or  any  churcli,  until  about  the 
beginning  of  the  twelfth  century  ;  when  a  few  iu-'lviduals  began  to  think  some  new 
mode  better  tlian  the  old."  And  again:  "They  [the  Baptists]  never  have,  and  they 
never  can  find  a  single  case  in  the  New  Testament,  nor  in  alltlie  writings  of  the  Fa- 
thers, nor  in  any  authentic  history  for  nearly  one  thousand  years  after  them,  where 
it  is  stated  positively,  that  any  chur.h  in  any  place  ever  did  dip  or  iuimerse  a  single 
person."  For  aught  we  know  to  the  contrary,  this  Layman  may  be  one  of  Dr.  Miller's 
pupils;  ftir  the  Doctor,  in  his  work  on  Baptism,  published  in  1S35,  says:  "There  is  not 
the  smallest  probahiliiy,  that  he  (John)  ever  baptized  an  individual  in  this  manner' 
(by  immersion,)"  p.  93.  " 'J'he  Siicred  writrrs  Have  not  stated  a  single  fact,  or  em- 
ploye;! a  single,  term,  which  evinces  that  they  cither  preferred  or  practi..ed  immersion 
in  a  SINGLE  CASE-,"  p.  69.  "Immersion  is  not  even  the  common  meaningof  the  word" 
bapti/e;  p.  84.  "AH  iiupaitiul  juiiires— by  which  I  mean  all  of  the  taoiX  profound  and 
mature  Greek  scholars,  who  are  neither  theologians  ur  sectarians— agree  in  pronounc- 
ing, that  the  term  in  question  imports  the  application  of  water  by  sprinkling  "  p.  55. 

*'This  is  the  man,"  snys  the  Christian  Review,  "that  speaks 
ex  cathedra  in  his  book,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  using 
such  terms  as  'i  can  assure  you,  my  friends,'  and  brands  with 
ignorance  and  infamy,  those  who  maintairi  the  contrary." 

My  friend,  will  you  please  contrast  these  affirmations  with 
the  testimony  of  the  Pedobaptist  writers  we  have  quoted,  (among 
whom  may  be  named  such  men  as  the  Reformers,  Martin  Lu- 
ther and  .Tohn  Calvin,  and  Doctors  Wall,  Whitby,  Campbell, 
Knapp,  McKnight,  Blooinfield,  Ncander,  and  Professors  Hahn, 
Porson,  Lange,  Tholuck,  (Mshausen,  Stuart,  &c.,  together  with 
all  the  Greek  lexicographers,)  and  then  it  is  presumed,  he  will 
be  enabled  to  judge  on  which  side  truth  lies.  It  is  to  be  re- 
gretted, that  Dr.  Miller  and  the  "  liayman"  have  not  published 
the  authorities  on  which  they  base  their  novel  assertions  res- 
pecting the  meaning  of  the  term  baptizo,  and  the  practice  of  the 
ancient  church.  Had  they  done  this,  thev  might  have  enlight- 
ened the  most  learned  divines  of  the  United  States,  Europe,  and 
the  wor'd;  and  taught  them  what  they  never  before  learned, 
viz:  that  "  immersion  is  not  even  the  common  meaning  of  the 
word"  baptize,  anil  "that  there  was  [never]  any  such  thing 
thought  of,  hinted  at,  or  written  about,  as  i?nmersion,  in  any 
place  or  church,  until  about  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury, when  a  few  individuals  began  to  think  that  some  new 


50 

tnode  was  better  than  the  old,''  etc.     Let  us  now  hear  what 
Doctors  Wall  and  Cannpbell  say  on  this  subject: 

Dr.  Wall  (who  explored  iill  the  voluminous  writers  of  antiquity,  in  search  of  evi- 
dence of  infant  baptism)  says  :  "This  [ininicrsion]  is  so  plain  and  clear,  by  an  infi- 
nite NUMBER  of  pas-iaires,  that  ns  one  canno*^  bnt  pity  the  we;ik  endeavors  of  such 
Pedobaptisis  as  would  maintain  the  nejative  of  it,  so  we  ought  to  ihsown  and  show  a 
<lisliki-  of  tlie  profane  scofi-s  which  soma  people  give  to  tlu:  En;;lish  i^nti-Pedobap- 
tists.  merely  for  the  use  of  dippins;  when  it  wa^^,  in  all  probabilitv,  the  way  our  Sa- 
viour, and  FOR  CERTAIN,  was  th;^  most  usual  way  by  which  the,  ancient  Christians  did 
re-eive  their  baptism.  'Tis  a  great  wani  of  prudence,  as  well  as  honesty,  to  refuse 
to  grant  to  an  adversary  what  is  cep.tainly  true,  and  may  b-  proved  -o.  It  cnates  a 
jealousy  of  all  the  r<  st  one  says."  "The  custom  of  tlie  Christians,  in  the  near  suc- 
ceeditig  times  [to  the  Apostles  ]  being  more  largely  and  partii  ularly  delivered  in 
books,  is  KNOWN  to  have  been  generally  or  ordinarily  a  total  immersion." 

Dr.  Campliell,  in  his  Lectures  on  Systematic  Theology  and  Pulpit  Eloquence,  says: 
"I  have  heard  a  disputant,  in  defiance  of  Etxmology  and  use,  maintain  that  the  word 
rendered  in  the  New  Tesiament  baptize,  means  more  {)roperly  to  sprinkle  than  to 
plung(^;  and,  in  defiance  of  all  antiquity,  that  the  former  melhnd'was  tie  earliest,  and 
for  many  centuries  the;  most  gen'-ral  practice  of  baptizing.  One  who  argues  in  this 
manner,  never  fails  to  betray  the  cause  he  would  defend  ;  and  though,  with  resp.-ct  to 
the  vulgar,  bold  .assertions  generallv  f  ucceed  as  well  as  arguments,  sometimes  better, 
vet  a  CANDID  MIND  Will  DISDAIN  to  take  the  help  of  a  falsehood  even  in  support  of  the 
truth."  ' 

The  first  change  of  immersion  for  sprinkling,  by  Protestants, 
is  another  evidence  that  the  practice  of  the  prim.itive  churcli 
was  immersion. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Bliss,  of  New  York,  states,  on  the  authority 
of  Dr.  Wall  and  others:  "That  John  Calvin,  the  founder  of 
the  Presbyterian  church,  is  the  father  of  this  exchange  of  a 
divine  ordinance  among  Protestants.  He  first  began  it  in  15.'36, 
at  Geneva.  The  number  of  baptisms  there  became  so  much 
increased,  that  he  first  in  that  year  invented  the  practice  of 
drenching  the  candidate  by  pouring  a  pail  of  water  on  him,  as 
being- more  convenient  than  immersion,  afterwards  of  pouring 
a  less  quantity,  and  finally  of  mere  sprinkling."  Dr.  Wall,  in 
describing  the  fact,  says  that  pouring  was  the  substifute  for 
baptism,  which  Calvin  first  adopted,  and  that  his  sprinkling  was 
only  the  substitute  of  a  substitute,' and  was  the  most  scandalous 
thing  ever  adopted  for  baptism.  The  sprinkling  of  our  coun- 
try, then,  the  Episcopal  Wall  being  witness,  is  only  the  suhsti' 
tule  of  a  substitute;  quite  another  thing  from  the  divine  ordi- 
nanc?  itself.  Again,  Dr.  Wall  says:  "the  Presbyterian  church 
in  Geneva,  is  the  first  church  on  earth  that  ever  enjoined 
sprinkling."*  This  was  about  the  year  1556.  During  the 
persecutions  of  Queen  Mary  and  the  bloody  Bishop  Bonner, 

*  "Calvin  invenled'and  continued  the  Presbyterian  form  of  government,  empowering 
the  few  to  govern  the  many.  Tiiis  Presiiyteriau  body  soon  passed  a  law,  at  Gen«va, 
enforcing  sprinkling  as  baptism,  tjalvin  alludes  to  this  usurpation  of  power  by  this 
denomination,  when  he  says:  'Tlie  cht;rch  (i.e.  Presbvtrrijmism)  hatli  granted  to 
herselfthe  privilege  of  somewhat  altering  the  form  of  baptism,  retaining  the  .substance;' 
i.  e.  the  words."  Here  we  see  the  ground  on  which  sprinkling  was  first  maintained  by 
Protestants. 


51 

many  persons  from  England,  most  of  whom  -vverc  Scotsmen, 
fled  to  the  Continent,  and  visited  Geneva,  and  there  greedily 
imbihed  the  opinions  of  that  church.  On  the  death  of  Queen 
Mary  in  1558,  and  the  accession  of  EUzabeth,  they  in  1559  re- 
turned to  Scotland  with  John  Knox  at  their  head,  and  reported 
"how  the  famous  godly  man  John  Calvin,  as  he  was  called,  had 
improved  on  baptism."  This  was  the  commencement  of  the 
introduction  of  the  substitute,  sprinkling,  into  Scotland,  accor- 
ding to  the  new  Edinburgh  Encyclopedia,  and  from  thence  into 
England,  in  1559.  This  Encyclopedia  "  intimates  that  a  po- 
pish council  at  Ravenna  in  1311,  had  said  that  sprinkling  or 
pouring,  would  do  among  Papists,  but  yet  scarce  any  adopted 
it."  The  very  learned  Dr.  Gale,  in  1707,  writes,  (Reflections 
on  Wall,  p.  153,)"  Baptism  which  all  men  know  was  used  to  be 
administered  in  England  by  dipping  or  immersion,  till  Queen 
Elizabeth's  time  ;  since  which  time,  that  pure,  pri/«z7a"e  man- 
ner is  grown  into  total  disuse  within  little  more  than  one  hund- 
red years  ;  and  sprinkling,  the  most  opposite  to  it  imaginable, 
introduced  in  its  stead.  The  fact  is  notorious,"  &c.  Grotious 
asserts  also,  that  "  the  ordinance  has  been  changed  fiom  immer- 
sion to  sprinkling."  The  learned  Dionysius  Petavius,  refers  to 
the  same  alteration.  We  would  introduce  the  testimony  of 
others  had  we  space. 

"  It  was  not  till  near  the  year  1640,  that  a  parliamentary 
act  was  finally  passed,  requiring  all  the  children  in  the  realm, 
and  all  the  people,  to  be  sprinkled,  under  the  penalty  of  being 
treated  as  outlaws,"  etc.  From  1534,  the  beginning  of  the 
Episcopal  organization,  immersion  was  required  bylaw  till  1640. 
"  When  the  Presbyterian  confession  of  faith  was  adopted  at 
Westminster,  in  1643,  it  was  put  to  vote  in  that  assembly, 
whether  immersion  should  be  retained,  or  sprinkling  substitu- 
ted  in  its  place.  Twenty-four  voted  for  immersion,  and  twen- 
ty-five for  sprinkling.  This  small  majority  was  gained  by  the 
great  personal  popularity  of  Dr.  Lightfoot,  who  gave  the  cast- 
ing vote  in  favor  of  sprinkling."* 

*  This  aceount  of  the  change  of  the  rite  of  baptism,  ft-om  immersion  to  sprinkling,  is 
abridged  and  taken  mainly  from  Rev.  John  F.  Bliss'  Fourth  Letter,  published  in  the  New 
York  Baptist  Register.  "Mr.  Bliss,  who  is  a  graduate  (if  rny  memory  serves,)  of  Wil- 
liam's College,  has  been  for  more  than  twenty  years  a  congregational  minister,  and  du- 
ring that  time  has  been  instrumental  in  planting  more  than  twenty  Gongregatioua!  chur- 
ches in  western  New  York,  He  was  baptized  last  Januavy,  and  is  now  settled  over  the 
Baptist  Church, in  Henrietta.  New  York.  After  having  "studied,  to  use  his  own  lan- 
guage, "  twenty-five  years  after  principles  of  christian  union  ;  and  amidst  all  the  fog 
that  is  afloat,  after  thereat  organization  of  Christ's  kingdom  ;"  and  after  Slaving  thor-. 
pughly  investigated  the  subject  of  baptism,  (as  his  able  letters  abundantly  shQW,)  he  was 
at  length  compelled,  like  many  others,  by  evidence  and  trcth,  to  renounce  Pedobaptisih 
uudbecume  a  Baptist. 


52 

"  It  ia  notorious,  that  in  all  the  conntries  where  the  power  of  the  Pope  of  Rome  waa 
never  admitted,  and  among  all  denominations  of  christians,  who  do  not  acknowledge 
their  descent  either  directly  or  remotely  from  Popery,  immersion  is  now,  and  always 
has  been  practised  :  and  Dr.  AVall  says,  if  we  take  the  division  of  the  world  from  the 
three  main  parts  of  it,  all  the  christians  in  Asia,  all  in  Africa,  and  about  one-third  part 
of  Europe,  are  of  the  last  sort,  (i.  e.  in  which  third  part  are  comprehended  the  chris- 
tians of  Gra3cia,  Thracia,  Servia,  Bulgaria,  Roscio,  Wallachia.  Moldavia,  Russia, 
Nigra,  and  so  on  ;  and  even  the  Muscovites,  who,  if  coldness  of  country  will  excuse, 
might  plead  for  a  dispensation  with  the  most  reason  of  any." 

I  have  now  given  you  some  of  the  main  evidences  we  have 
for  beUeving  that  immersion  only  is  baptism.  First,  the  signif- 
ication of  the  word  ; — Second,  its  figurative  use  ; — Third,  the 
places  selected  ybr,  and  the  circumstances  connected  with,  the 
administration  of  the  rite  ; — Fourth,  the  practice  of  the  early 
christians,  and  the  christian  world  for  many  centuries. — I  fear 
I  have  trespassed  somewhat  upon  your  time  and  patience,  as  1 
have  been  more  extensive  in  my  remarks  and  testimonies,  than 
I  at  first  intended. 

Pedobaptist. — Although  you  have  occupied  some  time,  yet  I 
have  listened  with  much  interest  to  the  arguments  advanced,  to 
sustain  your  position,  that  immersion  only  is  baptism  ;  and  I 
must  say,  that  I  deem  them  weighty.  Indeed,  the  testimonies 
and  evidences  you  have  produced,  show,  very  conclusively,  that 
the  primary,  radical  meaning  of  baptizo,  is  immerse  ;  and  that 
the  Greek  church,  for  aught  we  know  to  the  contrary,  have  al- 
ways practised  it  ;  and  that  immersion  was  the  practice  of  the 
whole  church,  except  in  cases  of  sickness  for  12  or  13  centu- 
ries. Indeed,  I  do  not  see  how  any  man  can  doubt  this,  still 
there  are  "  certain  places  in  the  scriptures  in  which  some  form 
of  the  word  baptize  occurs,  and  others  where  the  ordinance  is 
mentioned,  which  render  it  very  improbable,  that  an  immersion 
was  either  positively  enjoined  or  invariably  practised." 

Baptist. — My  dear  friend,  we  have  a  remark  to  make  here, 
which  we  deem  of  importance  for  you  to  remember  :  that  is, 
that  the  evidence  which  we  have  adduced,  proves,  conclusively, 
that  the  word  under  consideration,  (Pedobaptist's  themselves 
being  judges,)  must  mean  immersion.  Hence,  it  follows,  that 
*'  we  are  not  permitted  to  assign  to  it  any  other  meaning,  unless  in 
a  given  case  immersion  be  impossible.^'  "  Where  a  thing  is  prov- 
ed by  sufficient  evidence,  no  objections  from  difficulties  can  be 
admitted  as  decisive,  unless  they  involve  an  impossibility." 
Those  then,  who  would  assign  to  the  word  in  question  the 
meaning  oiihev  6i  washing,  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  are  bound  to 
prove,  not  only  that  the  idea  of  immersion  is  improbable,  but 
that  is  manifestly  impossible.  This,  I  believe,  cannot  be  done, 
in  a  single  instance ;  however,   with   these    remarks,  if  you 


53 

will  please  give  us  the  passages  in  which  it  is  improbable  that 
immersion  was  practised,  we  will  examine  them. 

Pedobaptist. — The  canon  you  have  laid  down,  by  which  we 
should  be  governed  in  settling  the  true  meaning  of  a  word,  I 
must  say,  appears  consistent.  But,  as  1  am  quite  solicituous 
to  hear  your  comments  upon  these  passages,  I  will  first  cite  : 
Mark  7  :  3,  4.  "  For  the  Pharisees  and^all  the  Jews,  except 
they  wash  (nipsoiitai,)  their  hands  oft,  eat  not  holding  the  tra- 
dition  of  the  elders.  And  when  they  come  from  the  market, 
except  they  wash  {haptizoniia,)  they  eat  not."  Does  not  the 
word  Baptizontia,  here,  mean  wash  ? 

Baptist. — If  this  washing  is  included  in  the  idea  of  immer- 
sion it  is  presumed  that  it  does.  Take  for  illustration  the  case 
of  Naaman  (2  Kings  5  :  14).  The  man  of  God  commanded  him 
to  go  wash  or  bathe  (lousai)  himself  seven  times  in  the  river 
Jordan,  and  he  went  down  and  dipped  (ebaptisato)  himself,  etc.* 

*  As  it  regards  baptize  being  translated  to  wash  in  this  and  two  or  three  other  places  in 
the  New  Testament.  I  would  introduce  by  way  of  explanation  the  language  of  an  Epis- 
copalian clergjman,  in  a  letter  to  Bishop  Hoadly.  The  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
make  use  of  two  words,  baptizo  and  louo,  which  leads  us  to  the  precise  meaning  of  bap- 
tism, the  latter  of  which  is  almost  the  constant  word  of  the  Septuagint,  in  those  very  nu- 
merous places  where  bathing  or  washing  the  whole  body  is  commanded,  in  contradiction 
to  every  other  practice  of  washing  the  hajids  or  feet,  or  sprinkling  or  washing  of  clothes. 
Lousetai  udati,  occurs  no  less  than  eleven  times  in  one  chapter,  where  bathing  the  body  is 
appointed  on  sundry  occasions,  as  a  distinct  rite  from  washing  the  hands  or  garments,  &c. 
&c.  Since  therefore,  lousetai  udati  used  times  without  number  in  the  Ofd  Testament, 
never  imports  less  than  bathing  or  washing  the  whole  body ;  it  follows,  that  baptism 
means  the  same,  when  it  is  expressed  'by  our  bodies  washed  in  pure  water.' 

Here  the  word  baptizo  is  translated  dipping  and  washing  is 
evidently  included  in,  or  is  the  consequence  of  that  dipping. 

Now  all  that  1  am  bound  to  prove  here,  is  that  it  is  possible, 
for  the  word  baptizontia  from  baptizo,  to  mean  immerse. 
"  Here"  says  Prof.  Ripley,  "  are  two  instances  of  washing  (so 
called);  the  first,  a  matter  of  constant  occurrence  ;  the  second, 
an  observance  performed  after  returning  from  market.  *  *  * 
If,  ordinarily,  the  hands  were  washed  before  eating,  without  re- 
gard to  the  employment  which  had  preceded,  the  reader  is  pre- 
pared  to  hear  that  after  returning  from  a  mixed  crowd  of  people, 
where  he  was  exposed  to  various  occasions  of  defilement,  some- 
thing different  from,  or  additional  to,  this  washing,  (to  wit,)  a 
more  formal  and  thorough  ablution  would  naturally  be  per- 
formed." 

"  In  the  second  place,  two  different  Greek  words  are  em- 
ployed to  express  the  washing  in  the  two  different  cases.  The 
former  is  the  w  ord  usually  employed  when  only  wasliing  a  part 
of  the  body,  as  the  hands,  face,  or  feet,  is  performed  ,•  the  latter 
is  used  to  denote  the  washing  of  the  whole  body  by  immersion.* 

*  Robiuson's  Lex.  Baptizo  ;  def.  2 :  remark,  comp.  Nipto. 


54 

The  passage  should  be  translated  thus:  "  For  (he  Pharisees 
and  all  the  Jews  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft  cat  not ;  and 
Avhen  they  come  from  the  market,  except  they  hatlie  themselves 
they  eat  not.  This  was  the  opinion  of  Vatabulus  a  distin- 
guished Professor  of  Hebrew  at  Paris.  He  says,  on  this  pas- 
sage, '  they  cleansed  themselves  more  carefully  from  defilement 
contracted  at  tbe  market,  to  M'it  :  by  not  only  washing  their 
hands,  but  even  by  immersing  their  body.'  Tor  these  numer- 
ous immersions,  the  Jews  had  the  most  convenient  arrange- 
ments, and  their  mode  of  dress  would  render  the  practice  less 
burdensome  than  it  would  be  with  us." 

Grotins,  on  this  passajre  says:  "Tlioywcrc  more  solicitoas  to  cloause  themselves  from 
the  (Iciilciucut  they  had  coutructcd  in  the  maiket,  and  thorciure,  tlioy  uot  only  WASiito 
their  hands,  but  iMAiERSiii)  their  vvuolis  bouies."  \\i\.\i  hiia  agree  Beza,  jVitsch,  and 
others. 

Dr.  (Jill,  on  thispassage,  gives  us  a  quotation  from  Maimouidcs,  a  Jewish  writer,  who  it 
is  presumed,  knew  something  of  the  Oricntial  customs  and  practices  of  his  couuirymeii, 
"  Waslied  in  a  laver  which  holds  forty  sealis  of  water,  which  are  not  drawn,  every  dofiied 
man  dips  himself,  and  in  it  they  dip  all  unclean  vessels,  as  cups,  pots,  tfcc." 

Judson,  in  Jus  sermon  on  baptism  preached  at  Calcutta,  in  1812,  says:  "It  will  not  ap- 
pear strange  to  you  that  the  Jews,  on  jeturuing  from  market,  liMMERSED  themselves  ;  for 
you  ave  ac(tuainteil  with  the  custom  of  these  eastern  countries,  and  witness  lhclre«|ucut 
ceremonial  immersions  of  the  natives."' 

Olshausen,  in  liis  Commentary,  says  :  "  Babtizestiiai  is  DirFERENT  from  niptesthai  ; 
the  former  is,  here  tiie  IiMMersion  and  rinsing  of  the  food  purchased  at  the  market,  to 
remove  from  it  any  impurity  it  may  have  contracted;  the  latter  includes  the  idea  of  rub- 
bing, as  in  every  form  of  washing."  "  Kuinol  and  Meier  agree  with  Olshausen,  that  it  was 
the  '  food  brought  from  the  market'  that  was  said  to  be  '  baptized.'  "  Others,  as  Light- 
foot  and  Schottgcu,  show,  from  the  Rabbinical  writers,  that  there  were  two  modes  of  wasii- 
ing  the  hands  ainoiig  the  scrupulous  Jews,  and  believe,  that  here  (Mark  7:  4,)  the  immer- 
sion OF  THE  HANDS  is  to  be  uudcrstood."  It  appears  that  in  either  of  the  above  exposi- 
tions, baptism  was  regarded  as  immersion  instead  of  washing. 

Pedohaptist. — My  friend,  your  explanations  and  testimonies 
thus  fur,  are  as  explicit  and  abundant  as  any  one  could  ask  for. 
But  as  I  did  not  quote  the  latter  clause  of  the  4th  verse,  I 
should  like  to  hear  you  explain  that.  "The  washing  of  cups 
and  pots  and  brazen  vessels  and  faiZes"  (couches).  Is  it  not 
altogether  improbable,  that  the  couches  (for  so  the  word  ren- 
dered  tables  should  be  translated)  on  which  they  reclined  at 
meals,  should  be  immersed  'I 

Bai)iist. — In  reply  to  your  question,  I  would  remark,  that 
the  learned  Prof.  Robinson  of  Andover,  gives  his  views  of  the 
mode  of  washing  by  quoting.  Lev.  11  :  32, — showing  that  he 
understands  all  those  articles  were  "put  into  water."  Things 
■which  had  been  defiled  by  the  touch  of  a  dead  body  were  re- 
quired by  the  Levitical  law  to  be  cleansed  by  "  being  put  into 
water." 

Jud.-on,  on  this  passage,  says:  "  What  is  more  probable  than  th:U  they  abused  the  fir»t 
institution  of  this  ceremony,  by  superstitiousiy  immersing  a  variety  of  articles,  not  inclu- 
ded in  the  divine  command."  And  it  is  iiistorically  certain  that  they  did  this.  Maimon- 
dics,  the  commentator,  quoted  above,  stales  that  it  was  a  traditionary  custom  of  the  Jews, 


55 

lo  immerse  all  vessels  received  of  a  Gentile  or  an  Israelite  designed  for  eating,  drjnkin*, 
ahd  cooking,  before  using  them.  See  his  testimony  as  given  by  Gill  on  this  passage^ 
Again,  he  says :  "  Wherever  in  the  law,  washing  of  the  flesh,  or  of  the  clothes  are  men- 
tioned, it  means  nothing  else  than  the  dipping  the  whole  body  in  a  laver."  He  also  states 
that,  "a  bed  that  is  wholly  defiled,  if  a  man  dips  it  part  by  part,  it  is  pure.  A  pillow  or 
bolster  of  skin,  he  must  dip  them,  and  lift  them  up  by  the  fringes."  "Scaliger  and  Mis- 
neh,"agree  in  this,  that  the  Jewish  washings  of  the  body,  clothes,  cups,  tables,  brazen  ves- 
Bels,  beds,  &c.  was  alwajs  by  immersion  in  water."  Their  tables,  it  should  be  remember- 
ed were  not  like  ours,  bur  couches  or  beds  on  which  they  generally  slept,  or  matrasses  on 
which  they  reclined  at  their  meals* 

These  facts  establish  all  that  is  desirable  in  the  case,  as  they 
show  that  it  is  not  only  practicable  for  these  vessels  to  be 
cleansed  by  immersion,  but  that  it  was  in  all  probability  done. 
In  some  of  the  cases  it  was  plainly  commanded,  and  "  we  are 
compelled  by  reason  and  the  laws  of  language,"  to  give  to  the 
word  its  true  meaning.  And  even  the  shadow  of  a  reason  can- 
not consistently  be  urged  why  the  baptism  of  these  cups,  etc., 
should  not  be  translated  zmmersio/i  of  cups ^  etc. 

Pedobapiist. — There  is  another  passage  I  should  like  to  have 
you  explain,  it  is  in  Luke  11  :  37,33.  '*  And  as  he  was  speak* 
ing,  a  certain  Pharisee  besought  him  to  dine  with  him,  and  he 
went  in  and  set  down  to  meat.  And  when  the  Pharisee  saw 
it,  he  marvelled  (hat  he  had  not  first  washed  (ebaptisthe,)  be- 
fore dinner." 

Baptist. — After  what  has  been  said  of  the  passage  in  Mark, 
the  same  practice  to  v.hich  this  evidently  refers,  it  would  seem 
that  no  further  remarks  are  necessary.  It  appears  by  what 
preceded  this  account,  that  our  Savior  had  been  exposed  to  a 
mixed  crowd,  "  and  the  superstitious  Pharisee  was  surprised 
that  he  should  sit  down  to  meat  without  first  purifying  him- 
self by  bathing  or  washing  his  whole  person  according  to  the 
custom."  Bruce,  the  celebrated  traveller,  informs  us  that  in 
Abyssinia,  the  sect  called  Kcmmont,  "wash  themselves jTro/w 
head  to  foot  after  coming  from  the  market,  or  any  public  place, 
where  they  may  have  touched  any  one  of  a  different  sect  from 
their  own,  deeming  all  such  unclean."  "  Is  it  strange  then, 
I  ask,  "  to  find  the  superstitous  and  self-righteous  Pharisees 
immersing  their  couches  for  purification  or  themselves,  after 
mingling  in  a  crowd  at  the  market  or  elsewhere."  Milton,  the 
celebrated  Poet,  says  :  "  It  is  in  vain  alleged  by  those  who,  on 
the  authority  of  Mark  7  :  4;  Luke  11  :  38;  have  introduced 
the  practice  of  affusion  in  baptism  instead  of  immersion,  and 
that  to  dip  and  sprinkle  mean  the  same  thing.  Since  in  wash- 
ing, we  do  not  sprinkle  the  hands  but  immerse  them." 

Pedobaptist. — The  testimonies  you  have  produced,  to  confirm 
your  views,  together  with  the  explanatory  remarks,  render  the 
passages  thus  far,  very  plain.     But  there  is  one  other  pas.sage 


56 

that  I  have  heard  our  minister  bring  forward  as  triumphant 
proof,  that  baptizo  mesina  to  sprinkle,  that  is  Heb.  9  :  10.  "  Which 
stood  in  meats  and  drinks,  and  divers  haptlsms,  {baptls?nois.) 

Now  I  will  just  assume  his  ground,  and  you  may  an- 
swer the  argument  if  you  can.  Amongst  the  "divers  washings" 
{haptismata,  baptisms)  of  the  old  dispensation  referred  to  in  this 
passage  there  is  evidently  included  all  the  various  modes  of  Jew- 
ish purification  ;  and  consequently  the  rantisinata,  or  sprinklings 
which  were  the  most  numerous."  This  being  the  fact,  the 
conclusion  is  irresistible  and  certain,  that  Paul  terms  these 
sprinklings,  baptisms. 

Baptist. — Your  conclusions  might  bejust,  if  the  premises  had 
their  foundation  in  truth.  But  why  should  you  suppose  that 
the  baptisms  under  the  law,  included  all  the  purifications  re- 
quired by  the  law?  Is  this  asserted  here,  or  in  any  other  place 
in  the  scriptures?  Your  position  is  an  assumed  one.  You 
have  taken  for  granted  here  the  very  thing  to  be  proved,  i.  c. 
that  divers' baptisms  refer  to  the  sprinMings.  Now,  all  that  is 
necessary  to  refute  your  reasoning  in  this  case,  is  to  demand 
the  proof  of  your  premises.  This  begging  the  question,  that  is, 
taking  a  thing  for  granted,  is  a  very  con.mon  and  convenient 
way  of  proving  it. 

But  it  is  evident  fi'om  the  Mosaic  ritual,  that  immersions 
■were  frequent  among  the  Jqws,  and  on  some  occasions  required 
by  law.  Hence  it  is  obvious,  "  the  phrase  alludes  to  the  immer- 
sion of  the  different  things,  that  by  the  law  were  to  be  immers- 
ed.'" It  is  also  evident  that  if  there  is  any  word  in  Greek  that  can 
specifically  mean  immersion,  it  must  be  the  word  used  here,  as 
we  have  abimd;inny  shown.  From  what  we  have  said,  it  is 
manifest  that  the  primary  meaning  of  the  term  is  not  altogether 
impossible.  Prof  Robinson  translates  the  word  washings,  but 
refers  to  Lev.  11  :  32,  where  various  things  were  to  be  cleans, 
edby  being  ^  put  into  icaier.^  This  surely  is  evidence  that  the 
learned  Professor  supposed  the  Apostle  to  mean  immersions  in 
this  phrase,  "  The  term  '  divers  baptisms,'  Baumgarten  and 
others  rightly  explain  as  being  '  of  men  and  of  things.'"  "If 
this  be  the  sense,  no  one  will  object  to  the  idea  of  immersion." 
"  That  Dr.  Miller  and  others  should  explain  it  otherwise,  by 
making  it  mean  immersions,  sprinkling  and  the  like,  may  perhaps 
bo  accounted  for  without  much  difilculty.  Nevertheless,  con- 
tending as  he  does,  for  the  prosolyto  baptism  o^ persons,  and  ad- 
mitting the  various  ablution  of  things,  he  might,  had  he  felt 
disposed,  have  found  the  diversity,  as  others  d»j,  consisting  in 
the  subjects  \xr[{\objectsio  which  the  ablution  is  applied. 


57 

Rabbi  Salmon,  speaking  of  the  ablution  of  persons  ou  Ex.  29,  says  :  "  not  only  the  hands 
and  feet  were  washed,  but  the  whole  body." 

Starck,  sa}s  :  "  The  baptisms  with  the  Jews  were  not  by  sprinkling,  but,  in  addition  to 
washing  the  whole  body,  an  entire  immersion.  The  Hebrew  word  cannot  possibly  signify 
sprinkling.  Baptism  is  never  in  the  New  Testament  compared  with  Lcvitical  sprinklings, 
but  with  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ." 

Schneckenburger,  in  mentioning  the  lustrations  practiced  among  thg  Jews.  sa3-s:  "be- 
fore prayer  a  bathing,  or  at  least  washing  the  hands  was  common."  "  The  Jews  bathed 
BEFORE  entering  the  temple  or  the  synagogues."  Quoting  Pliilo,  who  uses  the  words 
rendered  bathino,  washing  the  body  by  bathing.  "  He  shows  that  the  Samaritines  did 
the  same,  lavare  aqis  corpus."  "  For  this  reason,"  he  adds  :  synagogues  were  erected 
by  the  side  of  rivers."    "  On  festival  occasions,  thej"  were  particular  in  their  purifications." 

Theophylact  says,  "purifj-ing  themselves  according  to  the  custom,  by  bathing  and 
fasting."  Philo  says,  "^purifjing  their  bodies  by  bathings  (LorTROis)."  Tertullian  speaks 
of  Jews  who  bathed  every  day,  because  tiiej'  were  defiled  every  day."  Epiphanius  says, 
"  the  Heniprohaptists  maintained  that  one  ought  to  be  baptized  everj^daj'  in  water  (enuda- 
Ti)."  Justin  Martyr  sa3s,  "these  were  Pharisees,  and  combats  their  error,  saying, 
Isaiah  did  not  direct  you  to  go  into  the  BATHJ(eis  balaueion,)whom  not  even  the  sea  could 
purify." 

Maimonides  Mikvaoth,  says:  " every  one  that  is  baptized  must  inimcr.se  the  whole 
body."  Schneckenburger,  speaking  of  proselyte  baptism  quotes  the  Talmud,  and  shows 
that  the  male  and  again  the  female  were  led  into  the  water,  the  female  up  to  her  neck,  each 
then  immersing  themselves  in  water;  and  on  page  145,  says,  "  the  ordinarj'  lustrations  of 
the  Jews  were  performed  in  the  same  way."  In  another  place  he  observes,  "the  Jewish 
lustrations  were  performed  by  total  or  partial  immersions." 

"  What,  then,  are  we  to  suppose  Paul  meant  by  baptism  in 
this  passage  (Heh.  9  :  10,)  Dr.  Miller  says,  •  the  sprinklings  of 
biOod.'  We  challenge  him  to  produce  a  single  passage  in  all 
the  range  of  sacred  and  pagan  literature,  which  shall  furnish 
a  parallel,  in  which  baptism  shall  signify  sprinkling  with  blood. 
How  often  do  the  sacred  writers  rhetorically  name  an  impor- 
tant  part,  and  make  it  stand  for  the  whole  !  When  the  ear- 
ly writers  attempt  an  examination  of  the  various  Jewish  rites  of 
purification,  they  always  distinguish  immersions  from  sprink- 
lings." Thus  do  the  Apostolical  constitutions.  "  Theodoret, 
too,  in  his  Com.  on  th[3p<issA^z,  distinguishes  between  baptisms 
and  purifications  by  sprinkling  :  "Unclean  persons  were  f?«- 
mcrsed  and  pwifed  by  sprinldings.^^ 

Pedohaplist. — The  exposition  you  have  given  of  the  above 
passages,  in  connexion  with  the  appropriate  remarks  made,  and 
the  learned  testimonies  you  have  cited,  render  their  import  so 
plain,  as  to  demand  my  assen<-.  Here  I  must  acknowledge  (that 
in  conformity  to  my  promise  when  we  commenced  this  "con- 
versation,") I  feel  myself  constrained,  b}*  such  an  amount  of  ev- 
idence, to  accede  to  your  views  of  these  passages,  though  I 
would,  consulting  my  own  feelings,  gladly  have  the  testimony' 
otherwise.  But  still,  there  are  a  number  of  passages  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  which  I  have  heard  urged  as  containing 
insuperable  objections  to  the  idea  of  immersion.  With  your 
consent,  I  will  quote  these  passages  separately,  and  present  the 
Pedobaptists'  views,  provided  you,  in  reply,  will  give  us  your  ex^ 
position  of  the  passages. 


59 

Baptist. — I  have  no  objection  to  give  you  my  views  of  the 
texts,  if  you  think  they  will  bs  of  any  service  to  you. 

Pedohaptist. — They  may  be  the  means  of  convincing  me 
that  you  are  either  right  or  wrong.  With  these  remarks  I  will 
cite  Acts  10  :  47 — "Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should 
not  be  baptized,  who  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  well  as 
we"  ?  Does  not  this  evidently  mean,  caji  any  man  forbid  water 
to  be  brought  in.  &c. 

Baptist. — If  Cornelius  had  wished  to  be  affused,  sprinkled, 
who  would  have  possessed  the  presumption  to  forbid  his  bring- 
ing water  into  his  own  house?  Surely  no  one.  This  cannot 
be  the  import  of  the  passage.  It  may  mean,  can  any  man,  (al- 
though he  be  a  Jew,)  who  has  a  private  bath,  tank  or  cistern, 
forbid  its  use,  that  these  Gentiles  should  not  be  baptized  ?  This 
construction  would  render  it  a  pertinent  question.  But  the 
plain  import  of  the  question  I  believe  is  simply  this,  "  Can  any 
one  forbid  the  baptism  of  these  persons^^?  Then  there  is  noth- 
ing in  this  text,  that  requires  the  word  "'baptized^ to  have  any 
other  than  its  usual  sense,  imz^iersetZ." 

Pedohaptist, — This  exposition  appears  quite  reasonable.  The 
next  case  is  that  of  the  jailer,  recorded  in  Acts  16  :  33.  Prof. 
Stuart  you  know  says  :  The  jailer  and  his  household  were  bap- 
tized at,  or  in  the  jail,  How  could  they  have  been  baptized  by 
immersion  ? 

Baptist. — Prof.  Stuart  allows  the  "  possibility"  of  there  hav- 
ing been  a  "bath"  in  thejaii, in  which  the  keeper's  family  were 
immersed.  This  "possibility"  is  all  that  need  be  asked.  But 
this  narrative  not  only  does  not  present  any  objection  to  the 
idea  of  immersion  ;  it  furnishes  positive  evidence  in  its  favor. 
The  following  appears  to  have  been  the  order  of  events.  Paul 
and  Silas  were  thrust  into  the  inner  prison  ;  an  earthquake  oc- 
curred  ;  the  jailer  sprang  in  and  fell  down  before  Paul  and  Si- 
las ;  he  brought  them  out  [of  the  prison,  says  Barnes]  ;  they 
speak  to  him,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house ;  he  then  washed 
their  stripes  ;  baptism  was  next  performed  ;  and  after  baptism, 
the  com\-)3.ny  returned  to  the  house,  (v.  34.)  After  instruction, 
then,  had  been  given  in  the  house,  baptism  was  performed ;  and 
after  baptism,  the  co?npany  returned  to  the  house.  Did  they  not 
leave  the  house,  in  order  that  baptism  might  be  administered  ? 
And  why  did  the  administration  of  baptism  require  them  to 
leave  the  house,  if  it  were  not  that  they  might  go  to  a  bath  or 
other  place  convenient  for  immersion'^  ? 

Pedohaptist. — I  must  acknowledge  that  it  is  to  me  wholly  in- 
explicable,  why  they  should  leave  the  house  to  administer  tha 


5^ 

ordinance  of  baptism,  if  it  was  performed  by  sprinkling,  for  it 
appears  they  returned  to  it.  But  on  the  supposition  they  were 
imm Tsedit  appears  very  reasonable. — Still  you  are  aware,  that 
baptism  is  thought  by  many  to  mean  a  washing,  in  Acts2'i  : 
16.  And  now  why  tarriest  thou,  arise  and  be  baptized  and 
wash  away  thy  sins. 

Is  not  baptism  in  this  place  called  the  washing  away  of  sin  ? 
And  is  it  not  evident  that  baptism  means  to  wash  or  sprinkle  ? 
And  is  not  this  opinion  confirmed  by  the  fict  that  he  arose 
straitway  and  was  baptized?  Where?  Why  evidently  in  the 
same  room  where  he  lay;  for  all  the  circumstances  go  to  prove 
conclusively  that  this  was  the  case.  Not  one  syllable  is  said 
about  their  loavinj^  the  room,  nor  about  Paul's  being  immersed. 

Baptist. — My  friend,  you  are  aware  that  the  spirit  of  inspira- 
tion has  made  use  of  the  Greek  word  Ihapto,  which  signifies  to 
bury,  to  descr'br3  the  ordinance  of  biiptism.  And  you  know  it 
is  said,  the  rich  man  died,  and  was  buried.  Where?  "  Why  ev- 
idently in  the  very  room  where  he  lay,  for  all  the  circumstan- 
ces jro  to  prove  conclusively,  that  this  was  the  case."  Not  one 
syllable  is  said  about  their  leaving  the  room,  nor  of  the  rich 
man's  bting  entombt-d  or  covered  up  in  the  earth.  "  And  is  it  not 
evident  that  burying  here  means  to  sprinkle  or  affuse  a  little" 
dirt  upon  the  man  ?  The  inference  we  have  drawn  respecting 
the  burial  of  the  rinh  man,  is  not  more  rash  and  inconsistent, 
than  the  one  you  have  drawn  respecting  Paul's  baptism.  Now, 
although  there  is  nothing  said  respecting  the  manner  the  rich 
man  was  buried,  still  I  conclude  he  must  have  been  interred  or 
covered  up  in  the  earth,  because  this  is  the  meaning  of  the 
word.  And  for  the  same  reason,  I  conclude  that  Paul  was  im. 
mt;rsod. 

Let  us  .owlook  at  the  scope  and  evident  meaning  of  the  pas- 
SGi^e, "  W  \y  tarriest  thou,"  i.  e.  "  Why  dost  thou  delay  or  linger 
ov  lose  time  l'^  Hasten — arise,  and  be  baptized,  (immersed.) 
The  w^-rd  arise  is  obviously  opposed  io  tarriest,  and  implies  im- 
mediate ip.otion  or  action.  Wash  away  thy  sins, — "Immersion 
in  pure  water  would  have  the  effect  of  washing."  "The  word 
for  wash  tiere  is  apolousai  from  /c«io,  the  term  used  by  the  Seven^ 
ty  whore  the  bithing  of  the  whole  body  is  intended,  in  distinc- 
tion to  tiie  WMshing  of  the  hands,"  etc.  Keeping  in  view  the 
meaning  of  louo,  let  us  read  the  passage  : — Arise  and  be  sprink- 
led,* or  poured  out  (like  wine  or  some  liquid)  and  wash  or  batho 
away  thy  sins       "is  not  the  allusion  to  washing  totally  disfig- 

*Dr.  Campbell  — "  Had  baptize  been  employed  in  the  seuse  of  raino,  to  sprinkle,  (which 
as  far  as  I  know,  it  never  is  in  any  use  sacred  or  classical,)  the  expression  would  doubtlesi 
have  been,  I  indeed  baptize  water  upon  you." 


60 

nred]"  We  have  shown  that  the  word  baptizo,  means  to  im* 
merse.  Had  it  been  so  translatt^d  here,  it  would  have  been 
beautiful  and  appropriate.  Finally,  we  will  listen  to  Paul's 
description  of  his  own  baptism.  "So  many  of  us  as  were  bap- 
tized into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death,  therefore 
V)e  are  buried  with  him  by  bapiism,''  Rom.  6  :  3,  4.  Now  this 
burying  by  baptism  must  mean  immersion.  But  you  may  in- 
quire  where  was  he  immersed?  I  reply,  that  is  not  material. 
Perhaps  in  a  tank  or  bath,  for  they  wen?  common  in  that  coun- 
try  But  I  will  obligate  myself  to  find  the  hath,  tank,  river  or 

l)ool,  where  Paul  was  "  immersed,"  when  you  will  find  the 
grave  in  which  the  rich  man  "was  buried."  The  Bible  says, 
that  Paul  was  "  buried  by  baptism,"  and  that  the  rich  man 
"  died  and  was  buried."  Now  I  believe  both  of  these  facts, 
though  I  do  not  know  the  body  of  water,  in  which  the  one  was 
hiiptizcd,  or  the  gram  in  which  the  other  was  buried. 

Pedobaptist. — AH  dt>ubts  about  this  last  passage  are  now  re- 
moved ;  1  perceive,  that  it  is  quite  as  apposite  for  you  to  inquire 
where  the  rich  man  was  buried,  as  it  is  for  me  to  inquire,  where 
Paul  was  immersed.  But  it  never  occurred  to  me  before,  that 
Paul  had  given  us  a  description  of  his  own  baptism,  by  sayinj^ 
that  he  and  his  Roman  brethren  were  buried  in  baptism.  It 
appears  to  me,  that  this  description  given  by  Paul  of  his  own 
baptism  is  satisfaciory  and  decisive  proof,  that  he  was  immers- 
ed. But  if  immersion  is  the  only  Christian  baptism,  how  could 
the  3000  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  (Acts  2.)  have  been  baptiz- 
ed by  twelve  men?  Where  was  this  immersion  performed] 
*'  Was  it  in  streams  or  brooks,  near  Jerusalem?"  We  think  not, 
for  there  is  not  one  word  that  even  intimates  that  such  was  the 
fact.  Pedobaptists  generally  think  it  could  not  have  been  with- 
in the  city  ;  for  siy  they,  that  was  built  "  on  the  top  of  a  hill, 
far  from  any  brook,  or  river  deep  enough  for  immersion." 
Such  heing  the  foct,  it  is  wholly  incredible  that  the  3000  were 
immersed  the  sameduy. 

Baptist. — I  would  just  remark  here,  should  there  be  any  diffi- 
culty  in  accounting  for  so  large  a  number's  being  im  nersed  in 
one  day,  the  same,  or  a  great  difficulty  rests  against  the  theory 
and  practice  of  our  opponents.  They  tell  us  that  "  the  chil- 
dren of  converts,  were  baptized  together  with  their  parents. 
This  must  have  greatly  increased  the  number  to  be  sprinkled 
and  consequently  makes  the  account  more  incredible."  But 
you  inquire,  "  how  could  the  30G0  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  have 
been  immersed  by  twelve  men,"  as  though  it  was  wholly  incredi- 
ble.    With   as   much  propriety  I    might  inquire,   how  could 


61 

Abraham  at  the  advanced  age  of  99  years,  perform  the  rite  of 
circumcision  upon  all  the  men  that  were  born  in  his  house, 
and  all  that  were  bought  with  his  money,  in  the  self  same  day, 
that  he  received  the  command.  Gen.  17  :  23.  (Those  born  in 
his  own  house,  amounted  to  318;  see  Gen.  14  :  14).  This 
must  have  been  more  difficult,  and  must  have  required  more 
time,  than  for  each  of  the  apostles  to  immerse  250  persons  in 
one  day. — "  Again  how  was  it  possible  (1  Kings  8:  63,)  for 
Solomon  on  the  day  of  the  dedication  of  the  temple  to  oiler  a 
sacrifice  of  2  and '20,000  oxen,  and  120,000  sheep?"  We 
can  eaeily  conceive  how  these  things  might  have  been  done, 
and  that  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose. 

You  intimate,  that  Jerusalem  is  a  place  very  destitute  of 
water.  From  what  source  have  you  derived  this  information? 
From  the  well  known  fact,  that  it  was  a  very  populous  city  ; 
and  "  the  metropolis  of  a  flourishing  country,  a  country  too, 
whos.i  prescribod  religion  required  the  constant  use  of  water 
for  purifications  and  ablutions,  and  all  of  whose  male  inhabit, 
ants  were  required  to  assemble  there  three  times  every  year  ;" 
or  from  the  historical  account  of  the  many  pools  and  tountains, 
which  the  city  is  said  to  have  contained  ;  among  which,  might 
be  mentioned  the  molton  sea,  furnished  by  fc^oiomon  tor  tho 
service  of  the  temple,  containing  about  seven  hundred  barrels 
of  water;  and  the  ten  other  lavers,  each  of  which  held  between 
nine  and  ten  barrels  ;  an<l  the  fountain  of  Siloam,*  whose  waters 
issuing  from  a  rock  were  received  into  two  large  pools,  and 
thence  glided  into  the  Kidron  a  considerable  stream  which  run 
alony-  the  valley  on  the  east  of  the  city  ;  besides  these,  there 
was  the  pool  o(  Bethesda,  which  according  to  Brown  and  Maun- 
dreil,  was  360  teet  long,  120  broad,  and  8  feet  deep.  In  addi- 
tion to  these,  we  might  add,  that  it  was  so  common  a  thing  for 
the  Jews  in  the  city  to  have  tanks  or  cisterns  near  their  dwel- 
lings for  bathing,  and  other  pi ivate  uses,  that  cistern  digging 
was  followed  as  a  business.  We  see  that  there  could  have  been 
no  want  of  water  in  the  city,  and  yet  there  are  men  who  labor  to 
lodge  in  '  ignorant  minds'  the  belief  that  Jerusalem  was  so  sadly 
destituteoif  water  that  the  3000  could  not  have  been  immersed. 

Again  it  is  evident,  that  there  could  have  been  no  want  of 
time,  for  there  was  only  one  short  sermon  delivered  by  Peter 
immediately  after  9  o'clock  A.  M. — (see  Acts  2d,) — so  that  the 
principal  part  of  the  day  was  before  them.  Since,  therefore, 
there  were  places,  water,  and  time,  sufficient,  the  twelve  Apostles 

*  According  to  Josephus,  this  fountain  "  had  water  in  it  in  abundance."— Jewish  Warj. 
Book  5lli,  Chap.  4th. 


62 

inlght  have  performed  the  work  in  tliree  hours,*  and  that  toaf 
without  leaving  the  precincts  of  the  temple,  for  there  was  the 
molten  sea,  the  ten  other  lavers  and  "dipping  room  ;"  (conven- 
iences abundant  for  their  accommodation.)  But  there  is  strong 
probability,  that  ail  the  administrators  were  present  on  that  me- 
morable occasion,  (see  the  previous  chapter,)  if  so,  there  were 
82  baptizers,  and  consequently  not  more  than  37  candidates  for 
each.  That  being  the  case,  they  might  all  have  been  baptized 
in  twenty-five  minutes.  The  pool  of  Bethesda  alone  was  suf- 
ficient to  accommodate  all  the  administrators,  etc.  And  final- 
ly, the  3,000  might  have  been  baptized  in  private  baths. 

As  ^^the  burden  of  proof  lies  on  those  that  object  to  immer- 
sion, can  they  prove  that  immersion  could  not  possibly  be 
practised  on  this  occasion?"  Hear  the  language  of  Prof.  Stu- 
art :  *'It  is  true,  we  do  not  know  that  baptism  was  performed 
by  the  apostles  only,  nor  that  all  of  the  3,000  were  baptized 
before  the  going  down  of  the  sun.f  The  work  may  have  ex- 
tended into  the  evening  ;  and  so  many  being  engaged  in  it,  and 
more  time  being  given,  there  is  a  probability  that  the  work 
eliould  haveboen  performed,  although  immersion  was  practised." 

"  Suppose,  however,  there  were  a  difficulty  in  explaining  this 
baptism,  inasmuch  as  the  notice  is  very  summary,  is  there  any 
thing  better  than  mere  conjecture  to  show,  that  they  vv^ere 
sprinkled?"  As  the  exact  arrangements  for  this  baptism  are 
not  known,  all  that  is  necessary  is,  to  "show  what  might  he 
done  in  various  ways,  so  that  there  could  be  no  necessity  of 
departing  from  the  usual  rite  of  baptism."  *  *  "But  is 
there  any  thing  in  the  whole  Bible  to  prove,  that  it  was  by 
sprinkling?"  VVhy  was  there  not  some  indication  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  narrator,  to  advertise  the  reader  of  so  remarka- 
bie  a  departure  from  the  customary  baptism?  In  the  contro- 
versy  between  the  Eastern  and    Western  Church,  why  did  not 

*  The  ordinance  Iin?  been  frequently  administered  in  less  ratio  of  time  than  this.  We 
have  seen  forty  caudidntes  immersed  by  one  administrator  at  tlie  rate  of  about  two  a  min- 
ute. 

t"It  is  no  where  asserted  in  the  scriptures  that  three  THOtrsAND  were  either  convert- 
ed or  BAPTIZED  on  this  day  (the  day  of  Pentecost.)  We  are  not  informed  whether  fifty 
or  FIVE  HUNDRED,  Or  MORE  werc  BAPTIZED  on  this  occasion.  We  aresimi)ly  told,  in  refer- 
ence to  those  who  were  then  '  pricked  in  their  hearts,'  wlio  '  gladly  received  the  apostles' 
word,' that  THEY  wore  baptized.  'And,' wo  are  further  informed,  'the  same  day  there 
were  added' — not  werel)aptized — '  about  3,000  souls.'  The  >criptures  also  warrant  us  iu 
Baying,  that  the  apostles,  aiid  the  one  hundred  and  twenty  disciples,  mentioned  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapter,  were  all  present ;  and  as  many  others  in  Jerusalem,  and  in  that  region,  as 
could  conveniently  be  at  tlic  feast  of  Pentecost." — (Fuller  on  communion  :  note,  p.  71.) 

Bloomficld  says:  "  We  need  not  suppose  all  fof  the  3,000]  were  baptized.] 

Dr. Starck,  court  preacher  at  Darmstadt  well  remarks,  that,  "In  the  history  of  those 
converted  by  Peter's  preaching  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  there  is  nothing  which  compels 
us  to  infer,  that  all  these  were  baptized  on  the  spot,  and  on  the  same  day,  which  is  taken 
for  granted  by  all  those  who  would  prove  sprinkling,  from  this  passage*" 


63 

the  Romans  teach  the  Greeks  the  true  meaning  of  the  Greek 
word,  and  show  them,  that  the  re-baptism  of  a  "  sprinkled  chris- 
tian" was  an  insult  to  Peter  and  the  three  thousand?  Why 
did  not  Cyprian,  when  called  upon  by  Magnus  to  decide,  wheth. 
er  persons  who  were  not  immersed  in  their  baptism,  were  legiti- 
mate  christians,  instead  of  reasoning  from  the  Old  Testavient, 
and  from  the  nature  of  the  symbolical  act,  settle  the  matter  at 
once,  by  saying,  that  the  apostles,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and 
in  private  houses  and  prisons,  baptized  by  sprinkling  or  pour- 
ing ?  He  lived  too  near  the  apostles  to  dream  of  such  a  thing. 
There  is  not  a  trace  of  such  an  opinion  in  all  the  Latin  or  Greek 
Fathers^  though  they  often  had  occasion  to  discuss  the  validity  of 
baptism  that  was  not  by  immersion..  Could  Novatian,  Cyprian, 
Cornelius,  Chrysostom,  and  others,  have  neglected  so  capital 
a  point  in  discussing  the  validity  of  pouring  in  clinic  baptism, 
if  things  were  actually  as  Pedobaptist  writers  conjecture  ?  Bret- 
Schneider,  in  his  Theology,  vol.  2,  p.  686,  felt  himself  compel- 
led to  say,  the  "conjecture,  that  the  three  thousand  wore  sprink- 
led, is  too  much  of  a  conjecture  to  be  trusted." 

Sclineckenburger,  in  his  Proselyte  Baptism,  inquires :  "Did  the  apostles  administer  bap- 
tism to  the  three  thousand  in  one  day,  or  did  the  three  thousand  perform  a  lustration  upon 
themselves  ?"  and  in  a  note,  "  this  is  more  probable  than  that  they  were  sprinkled."  What 
must  be  the  impression  of  that  erudit  critic,  who  had  made  deeper  researches  than  anjr 
other  man  living  into  the  nature  of  Jewish  lustrations,  to  induce  him  thus  to  maintain  thsU 
of  all  conjectures,  that  sprinkling  is  one  of  the  most  improbable." 

"  But  there  are  facts  on  record  in  the  history  of  the  church, 
which  remove  every  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  immersion  of 
the  entire  three  thousand." 

"On  the  great  sabbath  of  the  Easter  festival  the  16th  day  of  April,  A.  D.  403,  CrysostoHj, 
with  the  assistance  of  the  clergy  of  his  own  church,  baptized  by  immersion  300  persons. 
Yes,  one  man  assisted  only  by  iiTs  presbyters,  in  one  day  and  in  one  place,  immersed  3000  per- 
sons ;  and  that  too,  notwithstanding  the  christians  were  twice  attacked  by  furious  soldiers, 
the  enemies  of  Chrvscstom." 

"  So  in  496,  Remigius,  bishop  of  Rheims,  baptized  in  one  day,  by  immersion,  Clovis, 
king  of  France,  and  three  thousand  of  his  subjects. 

1  will  only  remark,  in  relation  to  the  above  historical  facts,  that  the  baptisms  referred  to 
were  administered  on  easter  day,  to  commemorate  the  resurrection  of  Christ ;  and  it  was 
common  to  reserve  all  the  baptisms  of  the  year  for  that  day.  Hence,  the  number  of  can- 
didates who  camelforward  at  the  same  time."* 

In  view  of  the  above  facts  and  the  examination  of  alleged 
improbabilities,'  I  ask  what  right  we  have  to  depart  from  the 
observance  of  the  primitive  rite  of  baptism,  as  prescribed  by  our 
Savior  ? 

Pedobaptist. — Your  explanations  and  remarks,  showing  what 
might  be  done,  and  the  conclusion  you  have  drawn  from  the 
fact  that  none  of  the  Latin  and  Greek  fathers  ever  referred  to 

*  Christian  Review,  V(d.  3,  pages  91,  92, 


64 

the  baptism  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  to  justify  pouring  in  clinic 
baptism  ;  together  with  the  import  of  the  term,  and  the  histori- 
cal facts  you  have  cited,  (which  by  the  by,  I  never  heard  of  be- 
fore,) seem  to  me  abundantly  sufficient,  to  render  it  not  only 
possible,  but  altogetJier  probable,  that  the  3000  were  immersed  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost.  But  then  what  do  you  think  of  the  re- 
marks of  Prof.  Stuart,  the  man  you  have  so  often  quoted  to  for- 
tify  your  positions  ;  he  says,  "  For  myself,  I  cheerfully  admit, 
thit  baptizo  in  the  New  Testtiment,  when  applied  to  the  rite  of 
baptism,  does,  in  all  probability,  involve  the  i  lea,  tiiat  this  rite 
wag  usually  performed  by  immersion,  but  not  always.  I  say 
usually  and  not  always,  for  to  say  more  than  this,  the  tenor  of 
some  of  the  narrations,  particularly  in  Acts  10;  47,48.  16: 
32,  33,  and  2  :  41,  seem  to  me  to  forbid.  1  cannot  read  these 
examples,  without  the  distinct  conviction,  that  immersion  was  not 
practise  I  on  these  occasions,  but  washing  or  ajfasion.^^ 

Baptist. — The  passages  above  referred  to,  we  believe  we 
have  shown  to  be  entirely  consistent  with  the  idea,  that  immer- 
sion was  practised.  But  where  nre  the  clear  evidences  that 
produced  the  "  distinct  conviction"  in  his  own  mind,  that  on 
these  occasions  immersion  was  not  practised.  Has  Prof.  S., 
exhibited  th(>se  evidences,  if  so,  what  are  they  ?  The  reader 
will  doubtlessly  be  surprised,  to  learn  that  these  evidences  is 
nothing  better  than  mere  conjecture.  Indeed  it  could  not  pos- 
sibly be  otherwise,  for  their  is  nolhing:  said  in  these  passages, 
touching  the  manner  in  which  the  rite  was  performed.  Js  it 
not  passing  strange,  that  a  man  of  Prof.  Stuart's  attainments, 
should  consider  mere  conjectural  evidence  sufficient  to  warrant 
him,  in  deviating  from  what  is  in  all  probibility  the  require. 
ment  of  Christ.  Again  hear  the  Professor's  admission,  when 
Bpeakingof  the  circumstances  connected  with  the  administra- 
tion of  the  rite  in  the  New  Testament.  "I  find  none,  I  am 
quite  ready  to  concede,  which  seems  absolutely  to  determine 
that  immersion  wms  not  practised."  Since  then,  Prof.  Stuart 
admits  that  immersion  was,  in  all  probability,  the  primitive  rite 
of  baptism  ;  .and  since  he  is  quite  willing  to  admit,  that  there  is 
nothing  in  the  circumstances  of  baptism  that  absolutely  ex- 
cludes the  idea,  that  immersion  was  practised  ;  and  since  he 
has  not,  nor  cannot  prove,  from  a  single  example  in  the  New 
'J'estament,  that  baptism  is  any  thing  otiier  than  immersion  ^ — 
*•  we  hold  that  every  principle  of  fair  interpretation,  requires 
him  to  explain  the  doubtful  passages  by  those  that  are  clear  ; 
to  extend  the  usual  meaning  of  the  word  to  every  passage  in 
which  that  word  occurs,  unless  there  is  something  in  the  cir- 


65 

cumstances  which  undeniably  demands  a  different  interpreta- 
tion." 

Pedobaptist. — I  must  say,  I  know  not  how  to  reconcile  Prof. 
Stuart's  practice  with  his  concessions,  but  as  this  is  not  my 
business,  I  uill  present  some  olijcctions  to  immersion,  which  are 
thought  by  many  deserving  of  particular  attention;  but  before 
I  proceed  to  this,  (should  you  deem  this  a  proper  time,)  I  should 
be  pleased  to  hear  you  advance  your  reasons  (which  you  prom- 
ised,)  for  not  bo-lieving  the  affirmation  so  confidently  made 
by  Pedobaptists,  that  the  legitimate  meaning  of  haptizo  is  to 
wash  and  cleanse  as  well  as  immerse. 

Baptist. — We  have  already  alluded  to  the  fact,  that  washing 
may  frequently  be  regarded  as  a  consequential  meaning  of  hap- 
tizo  ;  as  the  thing  to  be  washed,  is  generally  dipped  in  water.* 
The  same  remark  may  be  made  with  regard  to  cleanse.  The 
case  of  NaaKian  has  been  instanced  (see  page 53,  and  the  note.) 
But  as  it  is  confidently  asserted,  that  baptizo  signifies  to 
cleanse  and  wash,  etc.  I  would  ask,  "  does  baptizo  mean  to 
cleanse,  when  we  speak  of  baptizing  a  bucket  into  a  fountain, 
in  order  to  fill  it  ?  or  when  we  speak  of  baptizing  a  ship,  so  that 
it  becomes  engulphed  in  the  sea?  Does  it  mean  to  cleanse  or 
wash,  when  Plutarch  relates  that  the  soldiers  baptized  wine 
from  casks  with  cups  in  order  to  drink  ? — that  a  general  bap- 
tized  his  hands  into  blood  and  wrote  an  inscription — that 
weapons  were  found,  two  hundred  years  after  the  battle  of  Or* 
chomenus,  baptized  in  the  earth  ?  Is  this  its  meaning  in  Jose- 
phus,  where  he  says  that  Simon  baptized  the  sword  into  his  own 
throat?  or  in  [Aquila,]  Job  9:  31.  "Thou  shalt  baptize  nie 
in  the  mire,"  or  in  Hippocrates,  where  he  orders  a  blister  to  be 
baptized  in  milk  and  Egyptian  ointment  ? — Surely,  these  bap- 
tisms do  not  endorse  the  assertion,  that  baptism  is  a  gene- 
ric term  and  imports  the  application  of  water  in  any  manner. 
These  examples  with  others  that  might  be  quoted,  show  that 
baptizo  as  well  as  bapto,  signifies  to  dip  or  immerse  and  has  no 
allusion  to  tcatcr  whatever,  except  that  element  is  expressed  or 
implied. 

Pedobaptist. — It  must,  I  believe,  be  conceded  by  all  unpreju- 
diced  men,  who  w  ill  examine  the  evidences  you  have  produced, 
that  to  wash  and  cleanse  are  not  the  primary,  literal  meanings 
of  the  word  baptizo ;  indeed,  I  do  not  see  how  any  candid  man 

*Altingius  says:  "The  word  baptism — properly  signifies  immersion;  improperly, 
hv  ametonomy  of  tlieend,  washing."  Beza.— "  To  plunge  into,  to  dip  into  and  take  out 
again,  wlience  WASHING  doth  follow."  Alstedius.— "  To  immerse  andnottowaeb 
except  by  conseriuence."    These  are  the  testimonies  of  learned  Pedobaptists. 


66 

can  doubt  this,  for  in  most  of  the  cases  of  baptism  you  have 
instanced,  it  is  impossible  to  take  the  meaning  of  either  wash 
or  cleanse,  out  of  the  passages.  The  same  might  be  said  with 
regard  to  sprinkUng,  pouring,  wetting,  &c.  But,  as  I  intima- 
ted to  you,  that  I  had  a  number  of  objections  to  present  against 
immersion  as  the  only  baptism,  which,  by  the  advocates  of 
sprinkling,  are  deemed  weighty,  I  will  proceed  to  my  purpose, 
by  saying :  that  "  Christ  intended  his  people  should  be  free 
from  inconvenient  and  burdensome  rites  ;  but  immersion  would 
often  be  inconvenient,  and  sometimes  impracticable/'  What, 
I  would  ask,  must  be  done  in  such  cases  ? 

Baptist. — It  is  true  the  numerous  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the 
Jewish  dispensation,  together  with  the  time,  trouble,  toil,  and 
expense  involved  in  this  observance,  are  abolished.  Since 
the  observance  of  these  burdensome  rites  and  ceremonies  are 
done  away,  the  founder  of  the  gospel  dispensation  has  institu- 
ted only  two  external  rites,  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper. — 
Though  he  has  made  "immersion  as  essential  to  baptism,  as 
roundness  is  to  a  ball,"  "  shall  we  therefore  charge  him  with 
imposing  upon  his  people  a  yoke  like  that  which  rested  upon  the 
children  of  Israel,  too  grievous  to  bo  borne?" 

The  mere  mention  of  the  "inconveniences"  attending  the 
scriptural  observance  of  this  rite,  causes  those  to  smile,  who 
have  tested  the  weight  of  this  objection  by  actual  experience. 

As  it  regards  the  impracticability  of  immersion  in  some 
countries,  and,  in  certain  circumstances,  in  all  countries  facts 
will  abundantly  show  to  a  reflecting  mind  that  this  objection 
is  of  little  value  to  its  possessor.  Immersion  is  practised  at  this 
day  amid  the  torrid  suns  of  Asia  and  Africa,  and  the  perpetual 
snows  of  Siberia.  And  whenever  life  or  health  would  be  en- 
dangered by  the  administration  of  this  ordinance,  it  should  bo 
postponed  or  entirely  omitted.  Should  the  providence  of  God 
deprive  any  one  of  this  privilege,  then  it  would  be  the  duty  of 
that  person  devoutly  to  acquiesce  in  this  providence.  "  A 
willing  mind  is  accepted  of  God  according  to  what  a  man  hath." 
If  a  person  have  not  the  physical  ability  or  opportunity,  to  ob- 
serve this  ordinance,  then  of  course  it  is  not  required.  The 
privation  in  this  case  woidd  be  no  greater,  than  in  many  others 
where  christians  are  denied  by  sickness  or  other  causes  the 
privilege  of  attending  the  public  worship  of  the  sanctuary,  and  of 
laboring  for  the  conversion  of  sinners;  or,  where  one  is  "  pre- 
vented by  the  loss  of  sight  Irom  obeying  the  command  to  search 
the  scriptures." 

Pedohaptist. — Although  this  answer  of  yours  is  perfectly  sat- 


67 

isfactory,  yet  in  some  respects  your  denomination  are  quite  in- 
consisient  with  themselves,  for  instance,  "  iheir  practice  with 
respect  to  the  Lords  Supper,  is  mconsistent  with  their  strict 
adherence  to  tlie  primitive  mode  of  baptism.  They  do  no'  ob- 
serve the  requisitions  of  Christ  with  regard  to  '  ihe  time'  or 
'  the  place,'  or  Mhe  postwie,'  of  celebrating-  the  ordinance  of  the 
supper — nor  do  they  use  the  same  kind  of  '  bread'  or  '  wine.'  " 

Baptist. — My  friend,  in  reply  I  would  say,  the  command  of 
our  Lord,  "this  do  ye  in  remembrance  of  nie,''  — "  had  no 
reference  whatever  to  (he  circumstances  of  cdebrating  the  sup- 
per;  It  referred  to  the  eating  of  bread  and  the  drinking  of  wine 
in  commemoration  of  his  deaih,  without  any  allusion  '  to  time,' 
'place,'  or  'manner.'  So  in  relation  '.o  baptism  ;  Christ  com- 
mands his  followeis  to  be  baptized  [immersed,]  without  refer- 
ence to  time,  plyce  or  n^anner.  In  each  c&se,  tee  aje  bound  io 
do  just  what  he  commanded.  In  the  Lord's  Supper,  we-d»e  com- 
manded to  partake  of  bieid  and  wine,  in  grateful  remembrance 
of  Christ  ;  in  baptism  we  are  commanded  to  perform  the  act 
REPRESENTED  by  the  luord  baptize."* 

This  objection  is  groundless;  it  rests  on  the  assumption, 
"  that  immersion  is  only  a  circumstance  of  baptism,  while  ii  has 
been  already  shown,  it  is  not  a  circumstance  attending  it,  but  be^ 
longs  to  the  nature  oj  baptism  itself." 

Finally,  tiiis  objection  is  a  plain  admission  that  the  primitive 
baptism  was  immersion. 

Pedobaptist. — Without  attempting  to  reply  to  your  very  able 
and  appropriate  answer,  I  will  present  my  next  objection,  "im- 
mersion is  unfavorable  to  collected  serious  thought  in  the  per- 
son who  submits  to  it ;  and  makes  on  the  spectators  an  impres- 
sion adverse  to  religion." 

Baptist. — In  regard  to  the  first  part  of  the  objection,  mul- 
titudes, "  many  of  whom  were  timid  and  delicate  females," 
have,  "  with  placid  brow  and  unfaultering  step,  gone  down  into 
the  w^ater,"  and  been  buried  loith  Christ  in  baptism^  and  now 
stand  ready  to  "  testify  to  the. serene  composure,  and  the  tender 
solemnity  of  their  feelings,"  and  the  peace  of  mind  ihey  enjoyed 
on  that  occasion.  The  ordinance  is  so  beautifully  emblen^jatical 
of  the  foundation  of  the  believer's  hope,  the  death  and  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ,  and  consequently  so  full  of  "rich  and  precious  in- 
struction," as  to  impart  a  "  sustaining,  elevating  power,''  which 
causes  its  subjects  to  rise  superior  to  the  infirmities  which, 
under  other  circumstances,  would  probably  disarm  and  overpow- 
er them. 

*Jffui.  Jeweic. 


68 

With  reference  to  ths  latter  part  of  the  objcciion,  that  the 
impression  produced  on  fhespecialors,  is  unfavorable  to  religion, 
must  surely  bo  regarded  as  the  offspring  of  prejudice  ;  as 
it  is  every  where  cnniradinted  by  experience.  Who  that  ever 
witnessed  the  administration  of  this  ordinance,  did  not  deeply 
feel  that  the  scene  was  rnosi  solemn  and  sacred.  '1  lievenerated 
divines  Andrew  Fuller  and  Dr.  Siee.dman  state,  in  their  own 
account  of  their  lives,  that  the  impressions  they  received  on 
seeing  persons  baptized,  i.  e.  innnersed,  were  the  means,  under 
God,  of  their  conversion.  "  Thousi-inds  of  others,  also,  have 
been  led,  by  the  sttme  meons,  to  embrace  the  Savior,  who  was 
thus  set  forth  before  their  eyes,  as  '  buried  and  risen  again'  for 
their  redemption."  But  where  have  you  ever  met  with  the  aC' 
count  of  a  person  who  received  his  first  permanent  religions  im'« 
pressions  from  witnessing  the  sprinkling  of  an  infant  or  adult? 

•'  Some  have  even  gone  so  far  as  to  speak"  of  the  rite  of  im- 
mersion as  "indecent."  [t  would  be  well  for  such  persons  to 
reflect,  that  if  there  had  been  no  departure  from  the  primitive 
rite  of  baptism,  as  confessedly  practised  by  the  AJDOstles,  and 
the  Christian  world  for  many  centuries,  such  a  sentiment  as 
this,  would  never  have  found  a  '-local  habitation"  in  the  mind 
of  any  disciple  of  Christ.  I',  would  also  be  well  to  remind  such 
persons,  that  they  should  be  cautious  how  they  urge  this  senti- 
ment, lest  they  be  found  guilty  of  stigmatizing  an  ordinance  of 
Ciirist,  with  the  epithet  "  indecent."  If  Christians  cherish  such 
seniiments  and  feelings  as  these  against  this  gospel  ordinance, 
how  indecent,  in  their  view,  mus:  he  be  who  instituted  it,  and 
the  Christian  world  who  practised  it  generally  for  ff teen  centu- 
ries,  and  even  those  who  now  contend  for  its  observance. 

Pedobaptist.— My  friend,  a  sense  of  duly  induces  me  to  ac- 
knowledge that  you  have  thus  fctranswered  the  objections  pre- 
sented very  conclusively.  But  the  hour  has  arrived  when  my 
presence  is  absolutely  required  at  home.  Il  is  unnecessary 
for  me  to  say,  that  I  have  been  much  gratified  as  well 
as  edified  with  this  long  conversation.  But  as  I  have  manj' 
more  objections  to  urge  against  your  peculiar  sentiments, 
with  your  perrnission,  I  should  like  to  lesume  this  conversation, 
at  as  early  an  opportunity  as  will  suit  your  convenience. 

Baptist. — If  agreeable,  please  call  at  an  early  hour  to-motrow 
evening.    I  shall  then  probably  be  at  leisure. 


CONVERSATION  RESUMED. 


baptist.— My  dear  sir,  I  am  gratified  to  see  you  so  early  ;  es 
pecially  as  I  am  at  leisure  and  you  have  informed  me  that  you 
have  more  objections  to  present.  I  hope  I  may  be  abl*;  to  answer 
ihem  in  a  saiisfacrory  manner.     Will  yon  please  to  proceed? 

Pelobaptist. — My  brother,  the  objecmn  I  now  present,  is 
thought,  by  m.iny  Pedobapiists,  to  be  insuperable.  ''There  is  no 
expre-^s  command  in  the  New  Testament  limiting  us  to  immer- 
sion. Had  it  been  the  design  of  Christ  ihat  his  people  should 
confine  themselves  exclusively  to  this  mode  of  administration; 
why  did  he  not  50  plainly  make  known  his  will,  that  there 
could  be  no  mistake  about  it." 

Boiplist.—^m-Q\yy  this  objection  can  have  no  weight  with  you, 
or  any  one,  except  those,  who  Wili  not  admit  wha:  we  have 
ascertained  by  definite  and  irrefragable  evidence,  that  the  only 
proper,  legitimate  import  of  the  term  baptizo,  is  immeise,  over-* 
whelm.  If  this  has  not  been  satisfactorily  determined,  then  it 
is  absolutely  impossible  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  any  Greek 
word.— When  under  the  law  they  were  required  to  sprinkle 
blood  and  water  upon  the  leprous. person,  and  to  pour  oil  upon 
his  head,  it  appears  that  no  farther  explanation  was  necessary. 
The  words  pour  and  sprinkle  were  so  definite,  that  they  could 
not  reasonably  misapprehend  their  meaning.  Baptizo  is  equally 
as  definite  in  its  import,  as  either  of  the  above  words,  and  as 
explicit  and  uni^quivjcal  in  iis  meaning  as  our  English  word  im- 
merse. Prof.  Stuart  cheerfully  admits  that  it  does  in  all  probn 
ability  signify  to  immerse.  Now  admit:ing  the  truth  of 
this  concession,  I  ask,  what  right  has  any  man  or  class  of 
men  to  go  conirary  to  what  is  in  all  probability  the  requirement 
of  Christ'?  For  to  suppose  that  Jesus  Christ  used  words  out  of 
their  proper  significaiion,  is  neither  mora  nor  Ibss  than  to  suppose 
that  he  intended  to  misleail  and  deceive  h'is  hearers,  a  conclusion 
at  which  every  pious  heart  revolts.  We  are  led  then,  to  the 
irresistible  conclusion  that  when  Christ  said  to  the  Apostles 
"  Go  teach  all  nations  baptizing,"  &g.  he  commanded  them  to 
immerse  believers  or  disciples  ;  /or  we  are  very  confident  that 
that  IS  the  import  of  the  phrase.     Again,  the  act  of  immersion 


70 

cannot  be  expressei^  in  the  Greek  lan^nafro  more  plainly  than 
it  is  in  the  Nevv  Testani'^nt.  Such  b-^in<r  the  fact,  we  must 
conclude,  that  Christ  intended  that  we  should  be  immersed 
when  he  commanded  us  to  be  b^iptized.  TUe  word  he  employ- 
ed to  represent  this  ordinance,  is  as  definite  and  specific  in  its 
import,  as  any  word  in  th'i  language  *  Should  the  Ranlist 
object    to  this,    "  wr  would    arnfiie    on  this    point  with    him   as 

*  The  toUowiiia;  Greek  words  and  their  compjaads,  raosi  ol  which 
occur  in  the  Seplu  i£;ini  of  the  Old  and  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament, 
are  used  generally  "with  reference  to  ihe  app]i(aiion  of  water  for  various 
purposes,  viz:  Raino,  Raniizo,Cheu,  Echeo,  Ni  to,  Louo,  Piuno,  Bapto 
and  Baptizo,  Agni';o,  Kathairo,  and  some  others  of  less  note.  Now,  in 
so  many  wc  rds  used  in  reference  to  wnter,  is  there  not  one  of  them  of  such 
definite  import,  as  to  determine  oi'e  particular  application  or  use  of  wa- 
ter!"   Let  us  examine  the  use  of  some  of  these  words  in    Scripture. 

1.  "Spiinkle  am!  its  derivatives  occur  62  times  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testament:-  31  limes  it  is  raino  in  the  Greek,  23  times  the  compounds  of 
cheo,  and  8  lime-  other  words,  but  not  once  bapto  or  baptizo. 

2.'  "  To  pour  with  its  derivatives  occurs  152  times:— 94  times  it  is  cheo 
and  its  compounds,  58  times  other  words  and  phrases.  Of  these  there  are 
27  varieties,  but  not  once  bayto  or  baptizo. 

3.  "  To  was''  occurs  13D  times:— 38  times  it  is  nipLo^  face,  hands,  or 
feet;  49  times,  Zozio,  the  body;  44  times,  pluno,  garments,  or  such  like; 
5  times,  bapto  or  baptizo  the  effect  of  immersion,  3  times  cheo  and  chruzo 
metaphorically. 

4.  "  To  dip,  occurs  with  its  derivatives,  22tlmes:— Once  it  is  moluno, 
properly  to  stain,  as  when  Joseph's  coat  was  stained,  our  translation 
"  dipped  in  ihe  blood  of  a  kid."  It  is  21  times  bapto  or  baptizo.  Never 
once  roino  to  sprinkle,  6'/,'e'j  to  pour,  mpio  to  wash  the  face,  hands  or  feet, 
Ihuo  to  wash  the  body,  pktno  to  w^ash  garments,  or  any  of  their  compounds 
or  derivatives. 

5.  "  To  plunge  occurs  but  once,  and  then  it  is  bapto. 

6.  "  Tebel  or  taval  in  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament  occurs  17  times: — 
In  the  Septuaghit  it  is  16  times  translated  by  bapto  or  baptizo,  once  by 
molu7io,  to  dye.  Junius  and  Tremmelius  translated  it  16  times  by  ii7L<;o, 
immergo,  and  demcrgo;  and  it  is  translated  16 times  in  English  by  dip  and 
plunge,  once  by  dyed." 

"  In  the  English  Old  and  New  Testament  [as  we  have  seen]  the 
word  s/)rm/i;Ze occurs  62  times.  The  word  pour  and  its  derivatives  152 
times.  To  wash  and  its  derivatives,  139  times.  To  dip,  with  its  derava- 
tives,  22  times.  To  plunge  once.  Now  the  question  that  determines  the 
point'  is,  did  the  translators,  in  one  intance,  translate  the  same  word  to 
sprinkle  and  to  dip'?  We  positively  say  ?jo."  Again,  did  they  ever,  in 
one  instance,  translate  thcsawc  word  as  signifying  to  dip  audio  pourl  We 
positively  answer  ?/('.  J5a;;/<?andia/^z.croare  never  translated  eitherto  sprin- 
kle, or  to  pour.  Again, /?awo  and  jR«n//^o  are  never  once  translated 
to  dip,  immerse,  or  plunge."  From  these  tacts  it  is  evident,  "  that  in  the 
judgment  of  the  tr;:nslators,  these  worc's  are  so  definitely  expressive  of 
cerrain  actions,  that  they  never  coulJ  be  translated  into  our  language  by 
one  and  the  same  word  Sprinkling  and  pouring  are  actions  so  nigh  to 
each  other,  and  in  effect  so  much  the  same,  that /^ai/^o  and  the  compounds 
of  CAco,  are  both  translated  sprinkle.  But  go  impaissable  the  gulph  be- 
tween Qi\.\\ex  pouring  or  sprinkling  a.n^  dipping,  thatcever  once  is  raino 


71 

we  do  with  the  Universalist.  To  the  latter,  we  would  say, 
you  deny  that  the  words  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  denote 
the  duration  of  future  punishment,  express  with  certainty  the 
idea  of  endless  duration  Give  us,  then,  words  which  can 
express  it  with  mort  certainty.  If  vou  can,  we  yield  the  point 
for  which  we  have  contended.  If  you  cannot,  you  charge  upon 
the  richest  language  in  the  norld,  the  smgular  fault  of  lacking 
a  term  to  express  definitely  an  idea  famdiar  ioever3?  mind.  You 
virtually  declare  that  idea  to  be  inexpressible.  To  the  Rantist 
we  would  say,  you  deny  that  the  term  Baptizo  denotes  the  idea 
of  immersion  specifically  and  with  certamty.  Give  us,  then,  a 
term  that  denotes  it  with  more  certuinly.  If  you  can,  we  yield 
our  cause.  If  you  cannot,  you  virtually  declare  a  simple  act, 
known  to  all  nations,  and  familiar  to  every  mind,  to  be  inexpres- 
sible in  the  Greek  lan^ruage. 

"This  is  a  fair  challenge.  It  brings  the  exegetical  argument 
within  a  narrow  conipass.  A  child  can  understand  it,  and  all 
may  see,  that,  in  the  posiiion  we  take,  far  fiom  being  so  bigoted 
as  to  cofitend  merely  for  the  mode  of  an  ordinance,  we  contend 
for  baptism  itself,  fur  all  that  constitutes  its  essential  nature,  its 
beauty  and  its  dignity." 

Pedobaptist.—h^sieA^  of  stopping  to  notice  your  excellent  re- 
ply to  my  objection,  I  would  inquire,  why  should  we  "trouble 
ourselves  about  a  question  of  much  or  little  water.?"  And 
again,  as  baptism  is  a  "  little  punctilio,"  a  subject  that  produces 


chco^   louo,   nipto,    or  pluno,   translated  dip,  immerse,  or  plunge." 

Hence  it  is  manifest  from  these  facts,  that  if  our  Savior  intended  to 
enjoin  immersion  exclusively  on  his  disciples,  baptizo  is  the  very  word  he 
should  have  made  use  of,  as  there  is  none  thai  can  more  definilely  ex- 
press the  action; 

Again,  had  he  intended  in  this  ordinance  that  water  should  be  aoplied 
in  any  manner,  he  would  probably  nave  made  use  of  the  word  agnizo  to 
purify,  or  kathairo  lo  cleanse,  for  these  words  express  no  definite  manner 
of  applying  water.  Now  as  he  did  not  u.^e  an  indefinite  term  the  una- 
voidable conclusion  is,  that  "  he  did  not  command  an  indefinite  action  to 
be  perlbrmed  ;  and  as  he  did  not  use  a  word  that  definitely  signified  to 
pour  or  sprinkle^  he  did  not  command  those  actions  to  be  performed;  but 
as  he  adop  ed  a  word  that  definitely  signified  to  dip  or  immerse,  he  com- 
manded definitely  this  action  and  this  only  to  be  performed." 

Since  our  Savior  selecied  a  word  the  most  definite  in  ihe  language  to 
express  his  will,  and  since  that  word  literally  signifies  to  dip  or  immerse, 
and  since  he  has  described  none  but  believers  in  Christ  as  fit  recipients 
of  the  rite,  it  follows  that  he  does  not  sanction  any  thing  as  Chri^-iian  bap- 
tism, but  the  immersion  of  a  proper  subje  t  in  water,  agreeably  to  his 
command.  (The  quotation  marks  will  show  that  we  are  indebted  to  A. 
Campbell  for  the  greater  part  of  this  note.) 


72 

much   exciiement  when   agitated,  ought  we  not  therefore  to» 
cease  conversing-  nbout  it? 

Baptist — My  friend,  baptism  is  not  "  a  question  of  much  or 
little  water."  Tiie  only  question  on  this  subject  i.-,  vvhai  consti- 
tutes Christian  baptism?  And,  as  this  has  been  ascertained  by 
indubitable  evidence,  to  be  the  immersion  of  a  believer,  it  follows, 
that  it  is  absoliiiely  necesoary  to  have  water  enough  for  the 
administration  of  the  rite  or  it  cannot  be  performed.  Those  who. 
do  not  reg-ard  bap'ism*as  a  mere  trifle  or  ''non-essen'ial,"  will  no 
doubt  stiil  contmue  to  urg-e  its  importance  on  suitable  occasions. 
But  those  who  deem  it  a  mere  trifle  or  non  essential^  I  should 
think,  would  be  reall}'  ashamed  to  become  exciied  by  it.  Can. 
it  be  possible  that  any  thmg  which  Jehovah  commands  man  to. 
do,  is  nonessential,  or  ot  so  little  consequence  as  not  to  deserve 
his  attention  or  convers-itioTi? 

Pedohapiist.  —  My  Pedobaptlst  friemls  say,  "  what  is  the  use 
of  conversing  about  this  subject?  It  surely  can  make  nodifter--*. 
ence  in  what  manner  water  is  applied  in  baptism,  if  it  be  but 
applied  " 

Baptist. — Bere  we  would  remark,  "  that  if  the  mode  of  reasoning  adop-. 
ted  by  those,  who  maintain,  that  baptism  means  any  application  of  water, 
"whatever  be  the  mode,  were  universally  em.ployed,  the  character  of  oar 
philology  would  be  utterly  rained.  Let  the  same  73rmcf;jZe  be  conceded 
to  Unitarians  and  Universilisis,  in  the  exposition  of  disputed  passages,, 
and  ao  parade  about  the  laws  of  language  and  usus.  loqiiendi,  will  be  able 
to  uphold  the  pillars  of  orthodoxy.  To  strip  ihe  matter  of  its  learned 
dignity,  and  make  it  plain  to  the  most  common-sense  view  of  the  subject, 
we  will  give  a  specimen  of  this  mode  of  criticism  in  plain  English.  We 
take  the  word  to  fly  and  maintain,  that  it  does  not  mean  any  one  kind  of 
motion,  as  that  by  means  o\' wings,  but  thai  ii  merely  expresses  motion  of 
any  kind.  Movemmt  is  the  radical  idea.  The  usus  loqnendi  shows,  that 
it  is  said  indifferently,  that  '  the  snow  flies,'  '  the  du.st  flies,'  '  the  timbers 
fiy,'  'the  •^•tones  fly,'  'a  man  flies  at  another  in  a  rage,'  'the  carriage  flies 
throughthe  su'eets,'  'a  man  flies  bick  from  his  engagements,'  'time  flies,' 
and  among  the  rest,  'birds fl.y'  All  this  can  be  made  out  in  a  tenfold 
clearer  light,  than  the  position  we  are  combattinij." 

"  Ifbaptism  means 'any  application  of  water,'  it  would  indeed  have 
puzzled  a  Greek  ta  find  out  whatii  meant  when  used,  as  it  often  is,  of  a 
ship.  How  could  he  divine,  whether  it  meant,  that  a  vessel  was  wei  by 
launching,  or  that  it  was  ,?t)'7,.sV/'/ exiernally  by  th(^  waves  or  internally  by 
the  crew,  or  that  it  sprung  a  leak  and  wet  the  cargo,  or  that  rain  wet  the 
sails  and  rigging-and  deck,  or  that  a  surge  swept  the  deckl  But,  accor- 
ding to  the  view  of  learned  critics,  the  nature  of  the  word  is  such,  that  it 
can  have  but  one  meaning,  viz:  that  it  weid  under  water;  and  this  is  its 
invariable  meaning,  according  loclassic  usage. 

"It  is  to  us  a  matter  of  indifference  whether  the  word  be  said  to  have  one 
signification  or  onany  significations,  provided  the  many  be  included  in  the 
ont.''— Christian  Review,  Vol.  3,/)p.  97,  98. 

Pedobaptlst.— My  {\\^Vi6,  yoiu  illus'ra'ions  designed  to  show- 
that  baptism  cannot  import  the   application    o^  water    in  ar.y 


73 

I 

manner,  but  that  it  must  mean  immersion,  are  the  most  decisive 
that  I  have  ever  heard.  Bat  I  presume  you  are  awrire,  that 
very  many  Pe^ohapiius  affirm^tliat  s^prinkle  is  one  definiiion.  of 
baptizo.    Is  not  ihis  a  facl? 

Baptist. — My  brother,  we  have  already  srjven  the  lecficograph* 
ical  definition  of  baptizo,  and  said.  enou<rh,  ii  would  seem,  to 
convince  any  cmlid  imni,  tbat  bapti230.c  innot  fairly  be  render-- 
ed  to  sprinkle.  Bui  I  wdl  proceed  toshow  you  how  Pedobap-* 
tists  attempt  to  mike  it  out.  Tne  Greek  language  formerly 
came  to  us  throi]^h  the  channel  of  the  Latin  ;  i.  e  Latin  defi- 
nitions were  given  to  Greek  words,  and  Ea;^li3h  definitions  to. 
Latin  wor'ls.     Foreximple: 

Baptizo.     Mer^o,  irutnerofo   abluo,  lavo. 

Mrrgo,  [Q  pat  under  witer,  sink,  dip  in,  duck,  immerse. 

Immergo,  lo  plunge,  to  drench  or  dip  over  head  and  ears;  to  drown, 
immerge,  sink. 

Abluo,  to  wash  clean,  wash  away,  purify,  remove,  blot  out. 

Lavo.  to   wash,  rinse,  bathe,  besprinkle,  purg^. 

NowL-juo  is  a  secondary  and  consequential  meaning  of  Baptizo;  and' 
the  fourth  signification  of  this  word  is  given  by  Aiiisworth's  Latin  Lexi- 
con to  besprinkle.  This  definition  he  derives  from  this  expression  in  a 
Latin  puet:  "Tabellas  lacrymis  lavis;"  "Thou  bfsprinklest  the  letter 
with  tears,"  whi  :h  ought  to  have  been  rendered  was'i.  A  similar  expres- 
sion is  rendered  to  '.vash  in  .he  Gospel.  "She  washed  his  feet  with  her 
tears."  Again,  this  definition  is  obained  by  passing  the  word  through 
two  languages,  and  then  taking  about  the  twentieth  definition.  Now,  I 
object  to  this  principle  of  interpretation. 

Pedobaptist. — My  brother,  whv  do  you  object  to  this  rule  of  interpreta- 
tionl  [  suppose  it  is  because  it  gives  besprinkle  as  one  definition  ot  bap- 
tizo. 

Ba,tist. — I  object  to  it  not  on  that  account;  bu"  bscause  it  proceeds  upon 
the  principle  that  the  mjst  remD.e  detinitio  i  assigned  to  a  word  by  Lexi- 
cons, afier  passing  it  through  one  or  tvvo  languages,  is  as  truly  the  lit-.ral 
m;)o?-^  ot  the  word  as  the  first  or  primirv  signification.  Now,  on  this 
principle,  I  affirm  that  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  ascertain  the  literal  mean- 
ing of  most  words. 

To  illustrate  this,  let  us  pass  the  word  dip  mio  the  French  language, 
and  then  b  ick  into  the  English  agiin.  The  French  according  lo  Boyer 
have  given  this  word  four  definitions  to  express  its  various  uses. 

Dip.     Tremper,  plonker,  mouiller,  engager. 

Trem^e7\  to  dip,   soak,  imbue,  bathe. 

Plonger,  to  dip,  duck,  immerse,  plunge,  overwhelm,  cast  into,  stad. 

MouiUei\  to   anchor,  drop  anchor,  cast  anchor,  &c. 

Engager,  lo  pawn,  mort'^age,  pledge,  engage,  enlist,  fight. 

Suppose  now,  that  a  gentleman  employed  as  translator  for  one  of  the 
French  Journals,  should  in  translating  ^n  account,  from  one  of  our  Re- 
ligious periodicals,  of  a  Clergyman's  (^i.opi7?o- a  man  on  the  Sabbath,  in- 
stead ot  giving  the  pliin  import  of  the  term  dip,  should  nform  his  readers 
that  the  Rev.  gentleman /oj/.o^';^  or  stabb  d  a  man  on  ihe  Sabbath.  I  ask 
DOW,  would  he  give  the  true  meaning  of  the  word  din?* 

*  It  is  my  impression  that  I  have  somewhere  in  my  reading  met  with  a 
similar  illustration  to  ihe  above. 


74 

Pedobaptist. —CertaMy  not,  and  he  had  no  right  to  translate  it  thus* 
because  that  is  not  its  primary,  literal  raeanins^. 

Baptist.— My  friend,  he  might  vviih  propriety  plead,  that  he  bad  the 
same  riaht  to  translate  it  \ofisht  or  stib^  that  Peddbapiists  have  to  render 
its  corresponding  Greel^  term  baptizo  to  sprinkle;  and  that  he  had  adopt- 
ed precisely  the  same  rule  of  interpretation  in  rendering  this  word,  that 
Peddbaptislsob-erve  in  defining  baptizo. 

Pcdobaptist— My  brother,  does  not  the  word  dip  form  a  rare  exception 
to  this  rule  ot  translation.  It  it  does  not,  it  will  be  easy  to  expose  it,  by 
producing  other  similar  examples  or  illustrations.  Can  you  produce  any'? 
Bajtisi. —  I  could  produce  a  multitude  of  similar  examplesto  the  word 
dip,  to  prove  the  invalidity  of  this  principle  of  interpretation.  Let  us  ex- 
amine this  principle  by  passing  the  following  important  Greek  words  in 
the  New  Testament  through  the  Latin  into  the  English. 

Pisteuo,  to  believe.     A^m  ao,[o\ove.    iliomos,  eternal,  everlasting. 
PisTKUo.     Credo,  fide,  committo. 

Now,  as  a  specimen  of  the  English  definitions  Ainsworth  appends  to 
comwz^i<),  we  give  the  following:  to  mate' ,  to]air,t»  exjose,  to  offend. 

Suppose  now,  that  a  Pedobrpii'^t  minis'er  should  urge  upon  the  cele- 
brated infidel  Abner  Kneeland,  the  important  duty  of  believinj^r  the  Gos- 
pel of  Jesus  Christ  in  order  to  be  saved;  and  Kneeland  should  reply, "I 
dobelievethe  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ."  The  Pedobaptistinquires  ;  "how 
do  you  make  that  ouf?"  In  precisely  the  same  manner,  replies  Kneeland, 
"thai^you  make  out  that  you  have  been  baptized.  I  find  thai  to  expose  is 
one  of  the  definitions  Ainsworth  gives  of  comviitto,  the  last  Latin  defini- 
tion ot  the  Greek  Pisteuo.  Now  as  I  expose  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ 
to  ridicule  and  show  its  absurdity,  it  lollows  therefore  that  I  am  a  believer; 
for  that  is  the  import  of  the  term  Pisteuo,  by  the  sau  e  rule  of  interpreta- 
tion that  sprinkle  is  the  import  of  baptizo.  Hence  if  you  baptize  persons 
when  you  sprinkle  them,  by  parity  of  reasoning  I  b  licve  the  Gospel  when 
I  ea^/jse  it  to  ridicule."  Again,  by  this  r\\\Q  Xo  offend  \>Xo  believe.  Read 
Malt  18:  6,  by  subsiiiuting  believe  for  ofl^end,  you  will  find  by  this 
princ  iple  of  interpretation,  '-that  it  were  better  for  m  n  that  a  millstone 
were  lianged  about  his  neck,"  etc.,  than  to  believe  one  of  Christ's  disciples 
We  will  next  take  agapao. 

Agapao.     Deligo,  amo,  osculor. 

Now  oscvlor  means  to  kiss.    It   follows  by  this  rule  of  interpretation 
that  as  Judas  ki  -sed  JesusChrist,  he  loved  hiim,  and  as  he  exposed  him,  by 
this  act,  to  the  malice  of  the  Jews  he  believed  him. 
>  "We    will   finally   conclude   this  illustration  with    the   Greek  word 
aioni  s. 

AioNios,    Eternus. 

Eternus,  eternal,  continual,  perpetual,  lasting,  of  long  continuance,  du- 
ring life. 

Universalists  contend  that  aionios  when  applied  to  punishment  means 
during  life.  Now,  if  Pedobapiisis  are  justified  in  interpreting  baptizo  to 
sprinkle;  for  the  same  reason  then.  Universalists  who  follow  their  ex- 
ample ought  to  be  justified  in  rendering  aiu7ii  s,  during  lile.  And  Pe- 
dobaptists  cannot,  consistently,  say  aught  ay^ainsi  them  lor  rendering  it 
thus,  so  long  as  they  interpret  i^^/;^/.cro  to  sprinkle.  It  appears  evident  to 
me  that  if  we  were  to  carry  out  this  principle  of  interpretation,  it  would 
not  only  destroy  the  philology  and  utility  of  our  language,  but  involve 
us  in  a  dilemma  similar  to  that  experienced  by  the  builders  of  Babel, 
when  their  language  was  confoundid.  Hence  we  see  the  absolute  neces- 
sity of  adopting  the  purport  of  the  rule  o(  interpretation,  which  I  have 
before  mentioned,  viz :   That  the  primary,  lilerd  impcrt  (fawvrd  is  always 


75 

to  be  tnke7i  OS  the  true  cne,  unless  it  can  be  shcvm  by  conclusive  evidence  that 
such  a  meaning  could  not  p  ssibly  have  been  intended  by  the  author.  Bv  this 
rule,  Pedobiptists  would  find  that  bapiizo  means  to  immerse  ;  and"  Uni- 
versalists,  that  aionios  means  eternal.  But  if  there  is  no  certain  evidence 
that  baptism  Ls  immersion,  then  there  is  no  certain  evidence  that  aionios 
is  eternal  or  evei  lasting,  or  iha.i  pisteuo  is  to  believe,  or  that  agapao  is  to 
love,  or  even  that  our  English  word  dtp  is  to  plunge  or  immerse. 

Pedobaptist. — lam  very  willing,  my  fn end,  to  admit  your 
rule  of  interpretation,  pnd  also  the  general  correctness  of  your 
illus'.rfttions  going  to  show  the  ridiculous  absurdity  of  passing 
a  word  through  one  or  two  languages,  and  then  taking  one  of 
its  most  distant  lexicographical  definitions  as  it-;  trtie  and  literal 
import.  But  I  will  proceed  with  my  objections.  Prof.  Stuart, 
as  I  presume  you  are  aware,  represents  the  Baptists  tis  "break- 
ing the  church  in  pieces  b}'  contending  for  rites  and  forms." 
Is  not  this  a  fact.? 

Baptist.— Is  it  a  fact  that  the  Baptist  denotnination  have 
broken  "the  church  in  pieces,  by  contending  for  rites  and  forms?" 
This  surely  is  a  grave  charge;  and  if  true,  they  are  certainl;f 
deserving  of  censure.  Let  us  examine  this  charge,  and  see 
whether  it  can  be  sustained.  Both  denominations  maintain 
that  the  Lord's  Supper  thould  be  celebrated,  and  that  too,  by 
bapiized  persons,  and  those  believers;  but  neither  part^'  con- 
tends iha'.  the  ordinance  is  not  celebrated,  unless  the  bread  and 
wine  arc  partaken  of  in  a  reclining  posture.  Again,  both  de- 
nominations contend  for  the  right  of  baptism.  The  Baptists, 
that  believers  are  the  only  fit  recipients  of  the  rite.  'I'he  Pedo- 
baplisfs,  not  only  that  believers,  but  that  their  infant  offspring 
are  proper  subjects  of  this  ordinance;  though  the  Bible  and  the 
voice  of  histor)'  are  silent  respecting  it  for  the  first  two  centuries. 
The  Baptists  again  contend  for  the  rite  of  immersion,  which  all 
ecclesiastical  historians  affirm  was  the  primitive  form.  The'* 
Pedobap'ists,  not  only  for  the  rite  of  imioersion,  but  for  the  rite 
of  sprinkling,  and  the  rile  of  pouring,  in  direct  opposition,  as  we 
have  seen,  to  the  iinport  of  the  term,  and  the  general  practice  of 
the  chuich  for  fifteen  centuries,  here  it  wdl  be  observed,  that 
the  Pedohaptists  contend  for  ai  least  three  rites  more  than  the 
Baptists  ;  and  neither  of  them  found  in  the  church,  until  about 
the  commencement  of  the  third  century  Now,  wo  are  quite 
read)  to  admit  that  what  has  broken  the  church  in  pieces,  and 
caused  various  d-^nominations,  has  been  the  the  "contending 
for  rites  and  forms,"  not  instituted  by  Christ,  nor  found  in  ;he 
Apostolic  and  primitive  churches.  On  whom  now  does  the 
heinons  sin  of  "  breaking  ihe  church  in  pieces"  rtst?  On  those 
who  obey  the  injunction,   "  earnestly  contend  for  the  faith  once 


7a 

delivered  to  the  saints,"  and  who  "  keep  the  ordinances  as  they 
were  delivered?''  Or  on  those  who.  while  they,  maintain  that 
the  Bible  is  a  sufficient,  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  that  the 
rite  or  form  is  honessential]  yet  tenticiously  adhere  to  a 
particular  rite,  which  the  most  learned  of  their  own  denomina- 
tion admit,  is  unauthorized  'o_y  the  word  of  God?  You  will 
observe  here,  my  friend,  that  while  the  Baoiists  contend  for 
"onfl  Lord,  one  faith,  and  one  baptism,"  the  Pedobaptists  con- 
lend  for  one  Lord,  two  faiths,  and  al  least  three  baptisms.  Who 
now  "contend  for  rights  and  forms?''  Is  it  not  evident  that  if 
all  Christians  h-id  contended  for  "  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one 
baptisiij,''  that  the  church  would  not  have  been  '*  broken  in 
pieces?''    On  whom  then  rests  the  iruilt  of  these  divisions? 

PedohajAist. — My  dear  friend,  you  greatly  mistake  our  views, 
when  you  suppose  that  we  coniend  for  "three  baptisms.''  We 
contend  only  for  one  baptism,  and  that  having  several  modes, 
such  as  sprinkling,  pouring,  etc.,  we  do  not  contend,  however, 
that  any  mode  is  essential.  But  you  contend  for  one  particular 
foruT  of  baptism.  As  I  knovv  not  what  you  mean  by  our  con- 
tending for  "  two  fdiths."  I  should  like  to  hear  you  explain 
that. 

Baptist.— We  contend  that  personal  faith  in  the  subject,  is  an  indispen- 
sable prerequisite  to  baptism.  You  contend  for  this,  in  a  part  of  those 
wliom  you  baptize,  (sprinkle)  and  the  oih  ?rs  you  sprinkle  on  another 
faith,  i.  e.  the  laiih  ot'  the  parent.  These  are  the  two  faiths  of  which  we 
spoke. 

As  it  regards  modesof  baptism,  my  brother,  youmu^t  either  contend  for 
'■  a  baptism  that  has  71 !  mode,  or  a  baptism  that  ts  mode  and  nothing  iw^ 
fiicde,''' '•  or  H  baptism  that  has  many  modes."  If  tur 'the  first,  then  you 
must  contend  for  a  nonentity;  since  there  can  be  '  no  external  rile,  with- 
out a  mode  of  exi.stence."  If  for  the  second,  it  becomes  a  question  of 
importance  to  know  "what  that  mode  is;  for  without  that  mode  we  have 
no  b;iplism."  If  for  the  third,  i.e.  a  "  bapiism  that  has  many  modes," 
such  "as  washing,  sprinkling',  pouring,  etc.,  then  tiie  candidate  must  be 
immersed,  poured,  sprinkled,  washed,  etc.,  or  he  is  not  baptized.  Because 
sprinkling  is  only  one  mode  of  the  baptism  which  has  many.  Hence  if 
■water  is  only  sprinkled  upon  him,  he  has  received  but  a  "small  part  of 
baptism."  Now,  unless  it  can  be  proved  "that  a  part,  and  a  sm  ill  part  is 
equal  to  the  Avhole,  his  baptism  mast  be  veiy  imperfect  and  defective." 

Again,  your  denomin.ition  maintain,  not  only  that  sprinkling  is  one 
mode  of  baptism,  and  that  pouring  is  (>ne  mode  of  baptism,  etc.  but  that 
sprinkling  is  actually  biptism,  etc.  NowMf  sprinkling  is  one  mode  of 
baptism,  and  at  the  same  lime  is  baptism,  itself,  then  if  we  substitute 
sprinkling  for  baptism,  we  have  a  sprinkling  m>dc  of  sprinkling  and 
a  pouring  modj  of  sprinkling,  and  an  immersion  mode  ul  sprinkling, 
etc.  The  same  may  be  said  in  regard  to  pouring  and  immersion  This 
makes  consummate  nonsense.  Surely  no  one  will  contend  for  so  gross 
an  absurdity  as  this.  Hence  you  must  abandon  this  ground  as  un- 
tenable,   and  to  be  consistent,  you  must  either    maintain  that  one  of 


77 

these  aetions  alone  is  baptism,  or  that  all  of  them  combined  are  bap- 
tism; or  that  each  one  of  these  different  things  is  bapiisra. 

Pedbi-ptis'. — Well,  my  friend,    if  I  cannot  sustain  the  position  that 
pouring,  sprinkling,  and    immersion    are  different    modes  of  baptism^ 
then  I  will  take  the  ground  that  each  of  these  several  things    is  bap- 
tism. 

Baptist. — Then  you  maintain  that  each  of  the  several  different,  and 
specific  actions  of  pouring,  spiinkling,  immersion,  etc.,  is  one  and  the 
same  thing.  Let  us  examine  ;hi5  position.  That  immersion  is  bap- 
tism is  ij;ranted  by  all  tlie'world.  Now,  if  sprinkling  is  baptism,  and 
pouring  is  bap'ism,  then  it  follows  that  sprinkling  is  immersion,  and 
pourinsT  is  immersion,  and  so  vice  verst.  lor  according  to  a  celebra- 
ted axiom,  things  tbi.t  <. re  equal  ^  t  e  same  t!  ing,  ore  equ  Ituine  oMither. 

Pedibrptist.  -My  dear  biother,  ps  I  discover  no  discrepancy  or  error 
in  your  argument,  I"  shall  not  attempt  to  refute  it;  but  will  proceed 
to  urge  an  argument  in  favor  of  intant  aiid  adult  sprinklins'.  on  which 
the  Pednbaptisfs  place  great  reliance.  This,  by  the  way,  would  have 
been  preserted  in  its  proper  place,  had  it  not  escaped  my  recollection- 
Circumcision,  I  presume  you  are  aware,  was  the  seal  of  the  Abra- 
hamic  Covenani  under  the  former  economy  Hence  all  the  male  chil- 
dren or  desctndrnis  of  the  believing  P.tiiarch,  received  this  seal  or 
mark,  and  were  admitted  to  the  bles-in<:s  and  benefits  of  that  covenant. 
So  in  ihe  church,  under  the  G  spel  dispensation,  which  is  a  zontinua- 
tion  of  ihe  Jewish  church,  baptism  is  lobe  regarded  as  a  seal  ot  the  new- 
covenant  i.e.  New  Tesiameni  blessings,  and  should  therefore  be  ap- 
plied 10  the  children  of  believers.— Again,  as  baptism  is  a  seal,  "we  njight 
rai>e  an  ar^umei  t  from  <•  nalogy  in  favor  of  sprinkling  or  pouring.  In 
sealing  a  letter, the  wax  is  applied  to  only  a  sma'l  part.  Hence  in  bap- 
tism the  water  should  be  applied  to  only  a  small  part,  and  there  is  no 
more  propriety  in  dipping  a  man  in  water,  than  there  is  in  dipping  a 
letter  in  sealing  wax. 

Baptist  — 'Vhe  posirioii  you  have  taken  here  for  granted,  that 
the  Gospel  d-spensHtion  ot  gince  is  a  crmiinuation  of  ihe  Jew- 
ish, is  wholly  asptJi)  ed,  and  caimot  be  proved.  We  have 
Bhown  that  hnptism  did  not  cotne  in  the  looiri  of  circumcision; 
it  follows  of  coiir;e.  that  it  nmsi  belong  to  a  new  and  distinct 
dispensation.  Many  Pedobnptists  affirm  that  circumcision  and 
baptistn  are  seals  of  ihe  covenant  of  grace  ;  but  the  truth  is,  ihe 
Scriptures  no  where  teach  us  that  either  the  one  or  the  other  is 
the  seal  ol  any  covenant.  But  ihey  teach  us  that  the  sign  or 
mark  of  circutricision  which  Abraham  received,  was  to  hirn  a 
seal  of  the  righieoiisness  of  ;  at  fa'wh,  which  he  had  before  he 
was  circumcised  *  Now,  the  oljecf  of  this  appears  to  have  been, 
to  show  that  he  was  to  be  the  spiritual  father  of  all  those  that 
believe,  and  of  no  others,  whether  circumcised  or  not.  Hence 
circumcision  cotdd  no'  have  been  a  seal  of  riirhteousness  to  his 
descendants,  for  ihey  were  circiimicised  in  then  infiincy.  Again 
this  is  the  only  place  in  the  Bible,  where  circumcision  is  called 
a  sign  or  seal  of  righteousness,  and  il  was  thai  to  Abraham  and 
to  no  one  else.  *Rom.  II. 


7S 

To  affirm  thai  baptism  is  a  seal  of  New  Testament  blessings,  is  an  un- 
warranted assumption  which,  in  the  absence  oi  proof,  cannot  be  admitted; 
for  in  the  whole  New  Testament  account  of  baptism,  there  is  not  an  inti- 
mation, a  hint,  or  even  any  allusion  made  by  our  Lord,  or  his  disciples, 
about  baptism's  being  a  seal.  Still  the  Scripiures  are  not  silent  respect- 
ing the  seal.  The  children  of  God  "are  sealed  unto  the  day  of  Redemp- 
tion,"Eph.  4:  30;  and  they  are  "  sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise," 
Eph.  1:  13,  yet  not  in  a  state  of  infancy  before  they  believed,  nut  ajlcnoards. 
This  seal  impresses  the  child  of  God  with  a  marked,  permanent  charac- 
ter, which  is  the  true  circumcision  of  the  heart,  "in  putting  off  the  body 
of  the  fins  ot  the  flesh." 

It  appears  to  me  very  absurd  indeed,  to  call  infant  bap'ism  a  seal;  for 
if  it  CMU  be  so  called,  it  musi  be  a  seal  for  the  ratification  of  a  nonenti- 
ty. Nothing  surely  is  sealed,  unless  ihe  act  of  baptism  regenerates  the 
child,  as  is  intimated  by  the  baptismal  service  in  the  Liturgy  of  the  Epis- 
copal Church,  if  it  dots  th.it,  it  might  with  propriety  be  styled  a 
.seal  of  character,  and  ;he  evidence  of  t:,lle  to  spiritual  blessings.  But 
if  no  inward  spiritual  grace  be  imparted  to  the  soul  of  infants  by  this  rite, 
how  can  it  be  a  sealing  ordinance.  Nuw  Calvin,  who  regarded  baptism 
as  the  append -x  and  seal  of  faith,  "and,  therefore,  posterior  in  order," 
very  wisely  remarks  that  "  il'  ii  be  administc  ed  without  faith,  it  is  both 
an  injurious  and  gross  profanation."     (C  tn.  in  Act.  r:  3G.) 

As  it  regards  the  argument  in  favor  of  sprinkling,  drawn  from  the 
analogy  of  sealing  a  letter  ;  we  need  only  say  that  the  Bible  no  where 
represents  baptism  as  a  seal.  Hence  this  argument  falls  to  the  ground. 
And  in  addition  to  this,  we  would  remark  that  even  analogy  is  against  it. 
A  seal  is  a  uiark  or  impression.  Hence  circumcision  may  with  proprie- 
ty b^  termed  a  seal.  But  as  baptism  makes  no  external  or  internal 
mark  or  impression,  (read  Acts,  8  :  13—24,)  it  cannot  with  any  propriety 
be  termed  a  seal. 

Pedohaptist. — Whether  infant  baptistn  be  a  seal  or  not,  Pedo- 
baptists  believe  that  very  much  is  accomplished  by  it.  Ex- 
perience, they  say,  has  shown  that  t^e  greater  numbei  of  those, 
that  becotne  the  s•,Jbj^^cts  of  divme  grace,  anfl  unite  with  the 
church,  were  baptized  in  infancy.  Hence,  they  infer  that  God 
blesses  this  rite,  therefore,  it  should  be  observed.    , 

Baptist. — My  friend,  we  think  under  the  blessing  of  God,  that 
these  persons'  conversion  is  to  be  imputed,  not  to  their  infant 
baptism,  but  to  their  reliLnous  education,  for  the  Bible  teaches 
us  thai  men  aie  "  sanctified  through  the  truth."  John  17:  17, 
19.  14:  6.  Acts,  4:  12  Rom.lO:  9,14,17.  This  view  of 
the  subject  is  confirmed  by  the  fact,  that  experience  has  cihown 
that  the  greater  number  of  lUc^se  who  join  our  churches,  were 
neither  baptized  hor-  rantized  in  infancy,  but,  nevertheless,  had 
pious  parents,  and  received  religious  instructions  and  moral 
training.  Now  on  this  religious  cultivation  watered  with  devout 
prayer,  God  has  promised  ia  shed  the  glorious  beams  of  his 
heavenly  grace.  But  the  idea  that  the  mere  external  rite  of 
rantism  docs,  in  some  mysterious  manner,  shed  npjn  the  infant 
heart  the  holy   influences  of  Christianity,  is  absurd.     And  the 


79 

annals  of  the  church  show  conclusively  that  those  churches, 
which  do  not  practise  this  luiauthorized  rite,  are  blessed  with  as 
great  accessions  and  ds  much  spiritual  prosperity,  when  ihey 
use  the  divinely  appointed  nneans,*  as  those  which  do  practise  it. 

PedobaptAst. — As  I  have  no  testimony  on  hand  to  invalidate 
your  argument,  I  will  pass  on  to  John's  Baptism.  To  which 
dispensation  do  you  assig-n  that,  to  the  Jewish,  or  Christian?  Do 
you  believe  that  John's  Biptism  is  Christian  Baptism? 

Baptist. — I  regret  that  our  time  will  not  allow  me  to  go  into 
a  thorough  examination  of  this  sulject  ;  but  it  is  not  necessary, 
as  it  cannot  materially  affect  the  argument  of  baptism,  whether 
John's  baptism  be  assigned  to  the  Jewish  or  Christian  dispensa- 
tion The  argument  derived  from  it  in  favor  of  immersion, 
remains  in  either  case  substantially  the  same. 

We  have  shown,  by  the  highest  Pedobaptist  authority,  that 
the  whole  churcU  practised  itntnersion  for  1300  years.  Can  it 
be  shown  that  during  this  whole  period,  John's  baptism  or  Min- 
istry was  ever  called  in  question,  as  not  belonging  to  the 
Christian  or  Gospel  dispensation? 

Pedobxptist. — As  John's  baptism  was  instituted,  prior  to  the  abrogation 
of  the  law  i)y  the  death  of  Christ,  (which  act  introduced  the  Christian 
dispensation,)  theretbre  it  must  belong  to  the  Jewish,  instead  of  the 
Gospel  economy. 

Baptist. — My  friend,  it  is  evident  that  the  institutions  of  the  Gospel, 
must  have  been  givt-n  prior  to  Christ's  death  or  they  could  not  have 
been  sealed  by  his  blood.  In  the  law,  you  know,  Moses  first  gave  the 
precepts,  then  he  sprinkled  the  book  witii  the  blood  ol  the  testament ;  in 
like  manner  in  the  Gospel,  the  two  sacraments,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper,  were  instituted  prior  tothe  death  of  Christ,  that  ihey  might  be 
sealed  with  the  blood  of  the  New  Testament.  Again,  if  the  hypothesis 
be  adopted  that  the  Christian  dispensation  did  not  commence  till  the 
death  of  Christ,  it  throws  the  Lords  Supper  (which  was  instituted  before 
his  death)  back  into  the  old  di>pensation,  and  annihilates  it,  as  a  Chris- 
tian ordinance,  and  vetoes  the  baptism  perfoimed  under  thi  direct  au- 
thority and  immediate  notice  of  Christ.  John,  3:  22,  26.  4  :  1,2.  Now 
as  Christ  authorized  his  disciples  to  baptize  before  he  gave  his  final 
commission,  and  as  John's  baptism  and  theirs  appears  to  have  been  con- 
fined to  the  Jews,  Matt.  10:  5,  6,  therefore  the  commission  seems  not  to 
have  been  the  origin,  but  a  renewal  and  an  extension  of  the  command 
soas  ;o  embrace  ^11  nations. 

Pedobaptist. — But,  my  brother,  John  did  not  baptize  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  peculiar  to  the 
Gospel  dispensation. 

Baplist.—  YLo^'  &o  you  know  that  he  did  not  baptize  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity'?  Have  you  any  evidence  in  the  Bible  to  sustain  this  position! 
When  John  told  "  the  poople  that  they  should  believe  on  Him  that  shotild 
come  after  him,"   he  was  undoubtedly  pre  ching.     Now,  that  John  re- 

*  As  an  illustration  ot  tliis  fact,  we  need  only  point  to  the  present  flour- 
ishing conditioi.  of  the  Baptist  denomination  in  the  United  States,  num- 
bering over  6000  churches. 


€0 

•"^eived  his  eommission  from  God  to  baptize,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  and 
as  the  lormnla  used  by  him,  is  not  recorded,  the  precise  terms  in  which 
it  was  couched  are  not  known;  therefore  we  have  no  proof  that  he  did 
not  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Trini  y. 

Pedobaptist.—  B\it  if  John  baptized  in  the  na  r^e  ol  the  Trinity,  is  it  not 
ineffably  absurd  losuppose  tha,  in  ihe  account  of  this  religious  ceremony, 
so  ess-i-ntial  a  feature  should  be  omitted'? 

Baptist.  -No  more  absurd,  my  brother,  than  that  the  same  omissien 
should  occur  in  ihe  record  of  the  Aposiles'  baptism. 

Pedobaptist. — Have  we  any  evidence  that  the  il^osiZcs  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Trinity  ;  and  if  so,  what  is  that  evidence'? 

Baptist.— Ch\-\si  has  made  the  doing  of  whatsoever  Ue  commands  atest 
ot  friendship  to  him.  And  as  the  Ccmmission  which  the  Apostles  receiv- 
ed, required  them  to  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  we  conclude  that 
they  could  not  have  been  hii  friends  j^nd  disciples,  and  .still  reluses  Jto 
obey  their  commission  by  forsaking  the  formula  which  it  enjoined. 

Pedobaptist: — iL  issaid,  Acts  lO:  48.  8:  16,  ihat  they  were  baptized  "in 
the  n.ime  of  the  Lord  Jesus.'*  No^  if  this  be  the  case  how  could  they 
have  been  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity^ 

Baptist. — JNdw,  my  friend,  to  baptize  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  we  think 
implies  that  it  was  done  "  by  his  authority,  with  his  baptism,  and  unto 
his  religion  -,  (making  express  mention  ot  the  three  persons  of  the  Trin- 
ity,) as  he  had  clearly  commanded  in  Matthew."  (See  E-obinson's  Cal- 
met,  Art.  Baptism.) 

pg£Zr;6«pZwi.— My  dear  brother,  as  you  have  given  us  your  reasons  for 
not  assigning  John'  baptism  to  the  Jewish  dispensa'.ion,  "it  would  De  grat- 
ifying to  me  now  to  hciir  you  present  some  ol  your  more  prominent  rea- 
sons, for  believing  that  John's  baptism  is  Gospel  baptism. 

Baptist. — 1.  It  is  evident  that  John's  baptism  did  not  belong  to  the 
Jewish  economy,  for  if  it  had,  he  would  not  have  refused  to  baptize  the 
Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  who  were  of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  because  they 
brought  forth  no  "  fruits  meet  for  repentance."  The  various  ablutions 
and  sprinklings  among  the  Jews,  were  generally  performed  before  enter- 
ing on  an  ofhce,  or  after  some  pollution,  and  even  then  without  requiring 
any  evidences  of  repentance. 

2.  Had  John's  baptism  been  contained  in  the  Law  of  Moses,  the  Phar- 
isees would  have  known  it;  and  the  question  our  Savior  put  to  them, 
"  The  baptism  of  John  whence  is  it,  from  heaven,  or  of  man'?"  They, 
without  any  hesitation,  would  have  answered  from  heaven,  instead  of 
saying '' we  cannot  tell."  because  Moses  received  the  liw  from  heaven. 

3.  If  John's  baptism  dififered  materially  from  Gospel  baptism,  it  would 
seem  that  our  Savior,  when  commissioning  his  disciples,  would  have 
pointed  out  that  diff-^rence. 

4.  The  positive  declarations  of  Scripture  prove  that  it  belongs  to  the 
New  Testament  economy 

God  declares  by  his  prophet  Daniel  that  in  those  days  he  will  "  set  up 
a  kingdom,"  Dan.  2:  4t,  not  one  that  has  already  been  set  up.  Now  that 
this  kingdom,  spoken  of  by  Daniel,  i.  e.  tne  Gospel  dispensation  of  grace 
commenced  with  the  preaching  of  John  the  Baptist,  is  as  cerlaiu  as  the 

*  It  was  the  opinion  of  many  of  the  fathers  and  some  councils  that  the 
Apostles  sometimes  baptized  in  ih«  name  of  Jesus  only,  Ambrose  affirms 
*'  that  though  one  person  only  of  the  Trinity  were  expressed,  the  baptism 
is  perfect.  For,"  adds  he,  "  whosoever  names  one  person  of  the  Trinity 
means  the  whole.'' 


81 

■declarations  of  Scripture  can  rtiake  it.  "  The  law  and  the  prophet,"  sa>'s 
our  Savior,  "  were  until  John,  since  that  time  the  Kingdom  ol  God  is 
preached,  and  every  manpresseth  into  it.''  Luke  16:  16.  See  also  Luke 
17:  2;;  Matt.  21  :  U,  ''S.— Mark  recognizes  the  ministry  of  John,  as 
belonging  to  the  Gospel  dispensation.  "The  besinning  of  the  Gospel 
of  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God,"  Mark  1:  I.  Scott,  in  his  notes  on 
this  passage  says  :  This  was  in  tact  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel,  the 
introduction  of  the  New  Testament  dispensation,  etc.  Dr.  Whitby 
says:  "  The  history  of  John  the  Bapti-t,  is  styled  [he  begiymhig  of  the 
Go."f^eZ,  because  he  began  his  office  by  preaching  repentance,  as  the  prepa- 
ration to  receive  it  and  faith  in  tho  Messiah  as  the  subject  of  it."  Mat- 
thew Henry,  (in  loco:)  '•  The  Jospel  began  in  John  the  Baptist.  Peter 
begins  from  the  baptism  of  John,  -cts  1:22.  "In  John's  preaching 
and  Lrdinances,"  &c.,  "  there  was  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel  [church. — 
See  also  Dr.  Prideax's  explnnaiion  of  Daniel's  prophecy  of  the  ^eve7i 
weeks.  Connect.  2,  pp.  53,  54.  Dr.  Knapp,  the  learned  Lutheran  divine 
and  Prof,  ofj  Theolosy,  in  the  Universi  y  of  Hale,  says:  "  If  we  regard 
the  authority  of  Christ  and  his  disciples,  we  must  confess  that  the  bapiisni 
of  each  [1.  e.  of  Jesus  and  John]  was  one  and  the  savie  imtilute  ol  God 
himselt ;  and  that  the  design  of  each  in  administering  it  was  one,  inas- 
much ar  it  had  the  same  looking  to  the  repentance  of  (he  candidates  and 
their  faith  in  Christ ,  whether  about  to  come  or  having  ci.me  already.'' 
John  1:  31.  3:  27;  Matt.  11:  12;  Mark  1:  4;  LukeS:  3;  ActslO:  4." 
Dr.  W.  C.  Brownlee  of  New  Yoik  regards  "the  baptism  of  John  and 
of  Christ"  the  same  in  their  d\v\ne  origin,  the  same  in  element,  [water] 
the  same  in  the  doctrine  of  faith  and  repentance,  Luke  3:  3,  the  (  ne 
baptism,  Eph.  4 :  5."  See  his  work  on  the  principU-s  of  Quakers,  pp.  225. 
With  this  agrees  the  testimony  of  Calvin,  (Calvin's  Insti.,  B.  4,  c.  i5.) — 
Again, our  Savior  during  John's  imprisonment,  designates  the  ministry 
of  John  the  Baptist  as  the  beginn-'ng  of  the  Gospel  dispensation,  and 
places  the  matter  beyond  all  contradiction,  by  saying:  "From  the  days 
of  John  the  Baptist  until  now,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  suflereih  violence." 
But  on  the  supposition  that  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism,  and 
that  the  Gospel  dispensation  did  not  commence  till  after  Christ's  death, 
all  of  John's  and  Christ's  disciples,  the  twelve  apostlts,  etc..  must  have 
been  re-baptized,  either  c  n  the  day  of  Pentecost,  or  subs?qu  ntly,  before 
they  could  be  admitted  to  the  privi  eges  oi  the  Christian  church;— a  sup- 
position too  absurd  to  be  admitted  for  a  moment."  Where,  I  would  ask, 
is  there  to  be  found  on  the  sacred  record  an  instance  of  such  a  repetition 
of  baptism] 

Pedobaptist.— I  am  happy  to  inform  you,  that  just  such  an  instance  is 
recorded  in  the  19th  chapter  of  the  Acts,  where  Paul  re-baptized  12  t)f 
John's  disciples. 

Baptist. — That  these  persons  were  re-baptized  by  Paul  is  not  certaiti* 
It  must  be  admitted  that  great  and  good  divines  are  divided  in  opinion  on 
this  subject.  Let  us  now  quote  and  examine  this  pas>age  as  lecorded  by 
Luke  the  historian.  1.  "  And  it  came  io  pass,  that,  while  Apollos  was  at 
Corinth,  Paul  having  passed  through  the  upper  coasts  came  to  Ephesus: 
And  finding  certain  disciples,  2  He. said  unto  then,,  have  ye  received  the 
Holy  Ghost  since  ye  believed'?  And  they  said  unto  him,  we  have  not  so 
much  as  heard  whether  there  beany  Holy  Ghost.  3.  And  he  said  unto 
■them  unto  what  then  were  ye  baptized]  And  they  said  uno  John's  bap- 
tism. 4.  Then  said  Paul,  Jonn  verily  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  re- 
pentance, saying  unto  the  people,  that  "they  should  believe  on  him  which 
should  come' after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus ;  and  when  they  heard  it, 


82 

Ihey  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.*  And  when  Paul 
had  laid  his  hands  on  them  the  Eloly  Ghost  came  on  ihein  and  ihey  spake 
wiih  tongues  and  prophesied."  (Acts  19  :  1-6.)  Now  the  decision  of  this 
question  depends  entirely  \ipon  ihe  inlerpretaiion  given  of  ihe  words  con- 
tained in  ihe  filth  verse.  "When  they  lieard  this  they  were  baptized  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  These  woids  are  understood  by  one  party 
as  the  language  d  Paul,  and  by  the  other  of  Luke  the  historian.  We  re- 
gard this  as  a  part  ot'  Paul's  description  of  the  nature  and  design  of  John's 
baptism.  Our  oppuiienls  contend  that  it  is  ihe  language  ol  Luke  the 
historian.  This  last  interpretation  it  will  be  seen  relers  the  language  of 
the  fifth  verse  to  the  twelve  disciples  instead  of  to  the  people  mentioned 
in  the  fourth  vers.-.  JNow  if  this  interpretation  is  true,  then  tnese  disci- 
ples must  have  been  re-baptized  in  consequence  of  what  Paul  said  to 
them  in  the  fourth  verse.  But  what,  i  ask,  is  there  in  Paul's  language 
calculated  to  convince  them  of  the  invalidity  of  their  bapti.sm'?  He  who 
can  discover  any  thing  must  possess  a  keener  vision  than  we  can  boast. 
Now  this',  we  deem  an  insupeiable  cbjeciion  to  this  interpretation. — 
And  again,  if  there  were  c.ny  p  rticular  diflerence  in  the  baptism  of  John 
and  Christ,  it  would  seem  that  Paul  on  this  occasion  was  imperiously 
called  upon  to  point  it  ort.  Oi.ce  more,  you  will  observe  here  that  it  is 
not  said  that  Paul  baptized  these  disciples  but  that  he  laid  his  hands  on 
them.  Finally,  Ave  are  not  alone  in  our  views  on  this  passage,  lor  it  is 
the  opinion  of  Calvin,  Beza,  Pool,  Robins  and  a  host  of  Pedobaptist  di- 
vines, that  ihese  disciples  were  noi  re-bapiized.  It  is  also  worthy  ol  re- 
mark, that  the  view  we  have  taken  of  the  b:iptism  of  these  disciples,  is 
confirmed  by  the  case  of  Apollos.  "  This  man  was  instructed  in  the  way 
of  the  Lord;  and,  being  fervent  in  the  Spirit  be  spake  and  taught  dili- 
gently the  things  of  the  Lord,  knowing  only  the  baptism  of  John," — 
When  Pfiscilla  and  Aquila  met  with  tiim,  they  only  expounded  unto 
Iiim  the  way  of  God  more  perfectly;  as  we  learn  troni  Acts  .8:  25,  26. 
It  is  evident  from  this  case,  in  connexion  vvith  the  fact  that  there  is  no 
account,  so  far  as  we  can  learn  from  Scripture,  of  any  one  of  the  follow- 
ers of  Christ,  who  were  baptized  by  John  or  the  Apostles,  prior  to  the 
giving  of  the  final  commission,  that  was  afterwards  re-baptized.  Hence 
we  conclude  that  John's  baptism  was  essentially  Christian  baptism;  and 
all  that  could  afterwards  be  necessary,  was  to  teach  them  the  way  of  the 
Lord  more  perfectly. 

But,  were  we  to  admit  the  interpretation  that  these  disciples  were  re- 
baptized,  it  is  altogether  probable  as  the  transaction  occurred  more  than 
twenty  years  al'ter  John's  death,  and  as  these  disciples  "resided  nearly  a 
thousand  miles  iroai  the  scene  of  John's  labors,"  that  they  were  bapiized 
by  some  one  cf  John's  disciples,  who  had  failed  to  direct  them  to  Christ, 
and  to  give  them  all  of  the  instruction  which  John  was  accustomed  to 
communicate.!  Admitting  such  to  have  been  the  circumstances,  which 
are  altogether  probable,  (if  this  interpretation  be  *rue,)  this  passage  does 
not  militate  at  all  agair.si  the  validity  of  John's  baptism,*  nor  prove  that 
it  is  not  to  all.inlents  and  purposes  Christian  baptism.  The  Penny  Cy- 
clopcBiiia  says  :  "  The  meaning  ot  Christian  baptism  diftered,  little,  il  at 
all,  from  the  baptism  of  John.' 

*  Liierally,  "  And  hearing  ii  (ti  kousdiiies  de)  iney  uero  bupiized,"etc. 

t  John  taught  his  hearers  that  th«re  was  a  Holy  Ghost.  Matt,  3  :  11. 
And  yet  these  disciples  had  not  so  much  as  heard  ot  any  Holy  Ghost. — 
Hence  we  conclude  thatthey  could  not  have  been  bajlized  by  John. 

tSee  American  Bap.  Magazine  for  the  year  1825,  pp.  374.  Knappii 
Scripla  varii  argument!,  etc.    Vol.  L  p.  163-4. 


83 

PcdobapUst.—My  fr\eT\d,^a.s  the  most  prominent  arguments  have  been 
nrged  against  the  idea  that  Jotin's  bapiism  isChrisiian  baptism.  And 
as  this  view  ot  the  subject  cannot  materially  affect  the  argument  in  favor 
of  immersion,  I  will  waive  it,  and  present  an  objection  against  the  Bap- 
list  idea,  that  John's  baptism  was  immersion  ;  which  is  thought  by  many 
Pedobaptists  as  unanswerable.  "  It  is  said  that '  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea, 
and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,  went  oat  and  were  baptized  of 
him  in  Jordan.'  Now  according  to  Josephus,  there  were  frjm  eight  to 
ten  millions  ot  people  in  these  countries.  Now  suppose  John  .  .  ,  could 
endure  tlie  latigue  to  work  8  hours  in  the  day,  and  baptize  one  person  a 
mimile,  it  would  take  him  from  45  to  5G  years,  to  dip  all  these  multitudes." 
or  if  only  !  alf  lha.\.  nu-nber  it  would  take  him  half  that  time.  If  "one  quar- 
ter part  as  many,  it  would  take  him  from  11  to  14  years.  In  fact,  it  would 
take  him  more  than  five  years  to  dip  one  million  ;  and  John's  head  was 
cut  off  in  about  eighteen  monlhs— great  part  of  which  time  he  spent  in 
prison.  Yet  the  rforiptures  do  i^ay  ]:osUively,  that  r/i^he  people  in  all 
these  countries  were  actually  baptized  of  John  in  Jordan.  When  the 
Scriptu  res  say  all,  they  certainly  mean  at  least  the  larger  part." 

"Now  it  is  as  plain  as  day,  that  John  could  no  more  baptize  all  these 
people  by  dippuig,  than  he  could  lift  the  world,  or  put  out  the  sun  ! ! !  It 
is  a  palpable  absurdity  to  suppose  it." 

But  "  he  could  take  the  water  from  Jordan,  and  sprinkle  thousands  and 
thousands  in  a  day.  This  was  undoubtedly  the  way  he  baptized.'' — 
[Scripture  Directory  to  Ba/disvi,  pp.  13,  14.] 

Baptist. — "  This  argument,  my  friend,  so  specious  and  plausible,  is 
irequently  advanced  with  such  an  air  of  confidence  and  •rium.ih,  as  al- 
most to  silence  the  opponent  whom  it  fails  to  convince.  It  is  nevertheless 
founded  in  a  misapprehension"  of  the  import  of  langugae  aid  is  therefore 
perfectly  fallacious.  It  proceeds  upon  the  assumption,  that  rantism  is 
haptism;  i.  e.  that  sprinkling  is  immersion  ;  (which  we  have  shown  could 
not  be  the  case.)  and  that  the  word  all  here  means  the  larger  part ;  and, 
consequently,  that  John  baptized  in  less  than  9  months,  to  say  the  least, 
the  larger  part  of  all  the  individuals,  comprised  in  the  whole  realm  of 
Israel.  Now  we  have  no  d  jubt,  that  we  shall  be  enabled  to  show,  that 
John  baptized  a  much  less  number,  than  you  seem  disposed  to  make  out. 
It  is  true,  it  is  said,  there  "  w^^nt  out  to  him  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and 
all  the  region  round  about  Jordan  and  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan, 
confessing  their  sins."  But  it  is  plain  from  many  passages,  that  this  was 
a  V€ry  common  and  popular  style  of  expression,  by  which  the  word  all 
imporls.  a  great  7nany .  (See  Phil.  2:  21,  John  4:"25,  29.)  We  are  ex- 
pressly told,  John  3  :  26,  that  they  said  to  John  "  Rabbi,  he  that  was  with 
ihee  beyond  Jordan  to  whom  thou  bearest  witness,  behold  the  same  baptiz- 
eth,  andall  men  come  unto  him."  Now,  if  the  word  all  in  these  passages 
is  to  be  taken  in  its  widest  sense,  then  John  baptized  altJudca,  Jerusalem, 
etc.,  and  Jesus  Christ  baptized  all  ms/i ;  and  consequently  re-baptized  all 
of  John's  disciples.  But  did  Christ  re-baptize  John's  disciples?-  "If  he 
did  not,  then  the  people  were  not  all  baptized  of  John"  nor  of  Christ. — 
Again,  a  similar  mode  of  expression  occurs  in  Luke  3:  21 .  "  Now  when 
all  the  people  were  baptized,  it  came  to  pass  that  Jesus  also  being  baptized, 
and  praving,  the  heavens  were  opened,"  etc.  Bui  we  are  informed  that 
"after  tho'^e  things  came  Jesus  and  his  disciples  into  the  land  of  Judea,  and 
t'.ere  ho  tarried  with  them  and  baptized.  And  John  also  was  bap- 
tizing in  Enon  near  to  Salim,  because  there  was  muc'i  water  there  : — and 
ihey  came  and  were  baptized."  "  If  John  had  previou.sly  baptized  all  the 
people,  then  both  he  and  the  disciples  of  Christ  who  still  continued  to 
bapiif.e,  must  be  considered  Ana-baptists  V^  (i.  e.  those  who  re-baptize.) 


84 

Again,  if  we  were  to  admit  that  John  baptized  the  "  larger  part'*  of  the 
people  of  Israel,  then  Jesus  and  his  disciples  must  have  re-bapiized  many, 
that  John  baptized;  or  else  it  could  not  have  been  true  "that  Jesus  made 
and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John."  (Though  Jesus  himself  bap- 
tized not,  but  his  disciples.)  Matthew  Henry ^  (in  loco.)  '■  He,"  Christ, 
"  made  and  baptized  more  disciptes  than  John;  not  only  more  than  John 
did  at  this  lime,  but  at  any  time,"  and  yet  he  says  "  it  is  computed  that 
Christ  staid  in  Judea  about  six  months." 

2.  In  regard  to  John's  ministry  continuing  only  18  months,  I  think 
your  computation  very  erroneous;  some  suppose  that  it  commenced,  A. 
D.,  26;  others  in  27  and  others  siill  in  28.  But  according  tn  the  learned 
bishop  Prideaux  it  continued  three  years  and  a  half.  This  being  the  case 
he  had  more  time  than  9  months  in  which  to  baptize.  Now,  if  Jesus  bap- 
tized, in  about  six  months,  more  disciples  than  John,  in  the  course  of  three 
years,  we  must  conclude  that  John  never  baptized,  or  even  rantized  such 
immense  multitudes  as  our  opponents  imagine. 

3.  It  is  evident  from  Scripture,  that  John  was  very  cautious  in  the  re- 
ception of  disciples,  for  he  not  only  preached  repeutanceio  the  people,  but 
required  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  "fruits  of  repentance."  And 
we  are  informed  by  Luke,  3:  7,  8,  that  John  made  this  same  demand  of 
"  the  multitude  that  came  forth  to  be  baptized  of  him."  Now,  as  all  the 
persons  whom  io\\nhdL\){\zedL  confessed  their  sins,  it  is  probable,  that  multi- 
tudes came  to  his  baptism,  to  whom  this  rite  was  never  administered. — 
Hence,  it  is  obviou^j,  from  the  whole  account  ot  John's  baptism,  that  those 
whom  he  baptized,  gave  evidence  that  they  believed  his  messages  ;  and 
openly  professed  repentance  towards  God  and  faith  in  the  approaching 
Messiah.     Thus  the  lollowing  Pedobaptist  divines 

Dr.  Erskine,  "  John's  baptism  was  termed  the  baptism  of  repentance,  and 
baptism  to  repentance;  because  he  required  of  all,  whom  he  admitted  to 
baptism,  a  profession  of  repentance,  and  exhorted  them  to  such  a  conduct 
as  would  demonstrate  'heir  repentance  genuine." 

Scott.  "  It  does  not  appear  that  any  but  adults  were  baptized  by  John. 
.  .  .  Adult  Jews,  professing  repentance  and  a  disposition  to  become  the 
Messiah's  subjects  were  the  only  pe?-5ons  whom  John  admitted  to  baptism.'' 
(Com.  Matt.  3  :  5,  G.)  Burkitt.  John's  baptism  was  the  baptism  of  which 
infants  were  incapable.     Notes  on  Matt.  19:  13-15. 

Now,  it  John  was  thus  cautious  in  the  reception  of  disciples,  and  did 
not  baptize  any,  till  he  could  gain  evidence  of  their  repentance  and  faith 
in  the  Messiah,  it  is  evident  that  he  could  not  have  baptized  such  vast 
multitudes  as  many  Pedobaptisis  suppose.  Again,  it  is  probable  that  he 
could  have  immersed  them,  as  fast  as  he  obtained  evidence  of  their  per- 
sonal faith.* 

*  GermaM  Testament;  Matt,  3 :  1,  ''In  those  days  came  Johannes 
Der  Taufer;^'  John  the  dipper.— The  same  text  in  the  Dutch  Testa- 
ment; "In  xhose  A<iys  c^vae  Johannes  En  Dooper  •"  John  the  dipper.  Again 
on  Matt.  3  :  5,  6  :  "Then  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem,  ana  all  Judea,  &c., 
and  were  gedoopt  in  de  Jourdaen ;"  and  were  dipped  in  the  Jordan. — Acts, 
8:8;  "and  they  w^nt  down  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch, 
and  ky  doopte  Lem  ]"  and  he  dipped  him,  etc.  Confession  of  Helvetia 
(drawn  up  by  the  direction  ot  Buccr  in  1536,  ten  years  before  the  death 
of  Luther)  says:  "Baptism  was  instituted  and  consecrated  by  God:  and 
the  first  baptized  was  John  who  dipped  Christ  in  the  water  of  Jordan." — 
Magdeburg  Centuriators.  "  Tiie  Son  of  God  was  dipred  in  the  water  of 
Jordan,  by  the  hand  of  John  the  Baptist." — In  Pedobap.  Ezom.  Lightfoot 
AND  Adam  Clark.    '*  That  the  baptism  of  John  was  by  plunging  the  body 


S5 

'  4.  It  ib^  an  undoubted  fact,  that  John  could  immerse  in  a  decent  manner 
a  thousand  adults,  in  as  short  a  time  as  he  could  sprinkle,  in  a  decent  man- 
ner, these  same  adults  and  their  childi  en, 

5.  Finally,  (though  Jesus  baptized  more  disciples  than  John,)  it  must 
be  admitted,  if  there  i5  any  truth  in  Scripture,  that  the  great  mass  of  the 
Jewish  people  still  adhered  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  who  rejected  the 
counsel  of  God  against  themselves,  and  were  not  baptized  either  by  John  or 
Christ. — John  informs  us  that  Christ  "  ca7ne  unto  his  own,"'  "  To  the  Jew- 
ish nation  to  whom  he  had  been  so  expressly  promised,"  etc.— Doddridge. 
"■And  his  ovm  received  him  not.  The  great  mass  ol  the  people -.the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  rejected  him.  A  few  in  his  life  time  received 
him,  and  many  more  after  his  death."— Barnes  in  loco.  "  The  generality 
rejected  Him"  .  .  .  Yet  there  was  a  remnant  that  cioned  him  Rom.  11: 
7. — Henry  in  loco.  '' Israel  hath  not  obtained;'  i.  e.  "  the  nation  at  large 
hath  not  obrained  salvation." — Dr.  Patton.  See  Rom.  9  :  27,  31,  32,  .  10, 
21,  etc.  Now  from  the  whole  tenor  o^  these  passages,  "it  is  palpably  ab- 
.surd  to  sup,io..e"  that  John  baptized  more  than  a  mere  remnant  of 
these  people. 

PcfMri;j^i5f.— My  brother,  I  am  constrained  to  admit,  that  you  have,  in 
your  reply,  completely  demolished  the  assumed  foundation,  on  which  my 
objection  or  argument' was  based,  viz  :  that  the  word  all  mwsi  mean  the 
greater  part.  Hence  the  argument  falls  and  cannot  therefore  militate 
against  the  idea,  that  John's  baptism  was,  necessarily,  any  thing  other 
than  immersion.  I  will  therefore  waive  this  subject,  and  proceed  to  no- 
tice the  baptism  of  our  Savior.  It  seems  to  be  a  prime,  and  prominent 
argument  with  your  denomination,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  all  Christians  to 
imitate  the  example  of  Christ  in  bapti-m,  by  going  down  into  the  water 
andb3ing  immersed.  Now  I  conceive  this  to  be  a  great  mistake,  which 
will  appear  evident  if  we  take  into  view  the  object  of  Christ's  baptism, 
"  When  Christ  was  about  to  enter  upon  the  public  ministry  of  the  priest 
hood,  he  applied  'for  baptism  to  a  priest  under  the  Jewish  law,'  in  order 
'  to  fulfil  all  righteousness,'  and  thus  '  render  obedience  to  the  ceremonial 
law,'  as  found  in  Num.  8  :  6,  7,  and  Ex.  30  :  49,  20."  Hence,  it  is  evi- 
dent that" Christ's  baptism  was  designed  regularly  to  introduce  him  in- 
to his  priestly  office,  according  to  the  law  of  Moses,  under  which  he  com- 
menced his  ministry,  and  which  it  behoved  him  to  fulfil."  Now  would 
it  be  consistent  for  us  to  go  down  info  the  water,  under  the  idea  of  follow- 
ing Christ  into  his  priestly  office]  In  view  of  these  facts,  is  "  the  baptism 
of  Jesus  Christ  to  bs  imitated  by  Christians?" 

Baptist  — You  have  assumed  as  fact  here,  what  cannot  be  proved,  and 
must  not  therefore  be  conceded,  viz  ;  that  Christ  applied  to  a  priest  under 
the  Law,  for  baptism.     It  is  true  that  Christ  applied  to  John  for  baptism, 

(after  the  same  manner  as  the  washing  the  unclean  persons  was)  seems  to 
appear  from  those  things  which  are  related  of  him  ;  namely,  that  he  bar,- 
tizedin  Jjrdtn,  that  he  baptized  in  Enyn,  because  there  was  much  water 
there,''  (f-f.  {In  A.  Clirk's  Commentary,  at  the  end  of  Mark.)  Origin  re- 
marks "  that  the  four  Evangelists  say,  that  John  confessed  he  came  to 
baptize  in  water,"  etc.  Dr.  J.  J.  Gurney,  a  distinguished  Friend,  slates 
that--"the  baptism  practised  by  John  and  by  the  Apostles"  was  an  "  im- 
viERSioN  in  water." — Observ.  07i  the  Pecul.  of  Friends,  pp.  61.  Mosheim  tes- 
tifies substantially  to  the  fame  fact. — Eccl.  Hist.  Cent.  1.,  Part  1.  See 
Campbell's  Translation  of  the  four  Gospels,  Matt,  3:  16,  Also  Dod- 
dridge, in  loco,  Macknight's  Apostol.  Epis,  Note  on  Rom.  6:  4.  Many 
others  might  be  adduced  but  this  will  suffice. 


86 

but  where  is  there  any  evidence  on  record,  tliat  John  was  evei  consecra- 
ted alpriesil  Had  that  been  the  case,  would  he  not  have  been  known 
to  the  Jewish  Priesthood;  and  would  they  have  sent  priests  and  Levites 
irom  Jerusalem  to  demand  o(  him  who  he  was  ;  and  would  he  have  an- 
swered them  as  he  did'?  "  To  prove  that  Christ  was  baptized  to  fulfil  an 
existing  law  of  Moses,"  you  refer  us  to  Ex.  30:  19—21,  "  which  every 
biblical  scholar  knows  to  refer  not  at  all  to  the  consecration  of  a  priest  to 
the  sacerdotal  office,  but  merely  to  a  ceremony  to  be  perforn^ed  when  the 
!  riest  entered  the  tabernacle  to  offer  sacrifice."  Again  for  the  manner  in 
which  this  is  performed  you  have  referred  us  to  Num.  8:  6.  7.  But  if 
you  will  examine  this  passage,  you  will  find  that  it  "does  not  relate  to  the 
?r;(5/5  but  to  the  Levites  alone."  '  It  would  sesm  that  every  man  acquaint- 
ed with  Jewish  Antiquities,  would  know  that  there  exists  a  marked  "dis- 
liaciion  betwren  the  ceremonies  for  consecrating  a  priest,  and  those  for 
consecrating  a  Levite." 

"Again:  No  Jewish  priest  wr.s  ever  consecrated  by  baptism  meiely. — 
(See  Ex.  29)  Lundius,  tliestandard  critical  writer  on  the  sacred,antiqui- 
ties  of  the  Jews,  teaches  that  'sacrifice  was  the  chief  part'  of  the  consecra- 
tion ;  and  that  washing  was  only  preparatory  and  subordinate.  All  He- 
brew antiquities  agree  in  saying  that  the  consecration  of  the  priests  con- 
sisted ol  four  parts:  I.  washing;  2.  pniting  on  sacerdotal  robes;  3.  unc- 
tion; 4.  sacrifice.  Can,  then,  any  of  these  acts  alone  constitute  a  sacer- 
dotal consecration^  Furthermore,  all  these  rites  must  b:;  performed  in 
the  tabernacle^  or  temple,  must  continue  seven  days,  and  candidates  must  not 
leave  the  tabernacle,  but  must  repeat  «// t'wj^  rites  seven  times,  that  is,  each 
ol'  the  seven  days.  We  cannot  b.top  to  prove  these  statements  for  ihey  are 
not  disputed  points  among  the  learned.  For  the  honor  of  theological  sci- 
ence among  us,  we  sincerely  hope  that  \:g  shall  never  asain  be  told,  that 
baptism  in  the  Jordan,  away  from  the  temple,  without  the  robes  of  ofiTice^ 
without  a  Jewish  unction,  without  any  sacrifice,  without  a  sevenfold  repe- 
tition lasting  seven  days,  is  a  consecration  to  the  sacerdotal  oliice  as  re- 
quired by  the  law  of  Moses. '^ 

"  So  tar  from  such  a  consecration  being  required  of  Christ  by  the  cere- 
monial law,  it  would  be  a  direct  violation  of  that  law.  No  one  could  be  a 
priest,  unless  he  was  a  decendant  of  Aaron  in  the  male  line.  The  Mish- 
na,  and  all  the  critical  writers  on  this  subject,  show  that  a  critical  exam- 
ination was  to  be  made  of  the  lineage  of  each  priest,  and  that  his  descent 
could  not  be  taken  for  granted,  upon  mere  declaration,  but  must  he  demon- 
strated from  family  registers  :  see  Ezra  6  :  02,  and  Nehem.  7  :  64."  Now 
Christ  did  not  belong  to  that  line  of  descendants,  who  alone  could  become 
priests,  but  was  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  'of  which  tribe  Moses  spake  nothing 
concerning  priesthood.'     Heb.  7:   14. — Christian  Review,  Vol.  3. 

It  will  not  be  pretended,  that  this  was  the  ground  of  John's  scruples  in 
baptizing  him,  for  the  Gospels  tell  us,  that  liis  scruples  were  of  an  entire- 
ly different  nature."  And,  since  it  is  evident  that  John  himself  was  never 
constituted  a  priest,  nothing  can  be  more  absurd  than  to  suppose  that  he 
administered  the  rite  of  baptism  to  Christ,  to  introduce  him  into  his  priest- 
ly office  according  to  the  law  of  Moses ;  when  they  both  must  have  known 
by  that  very  law,  that  Christ  could  not.  on  pain  of  death,  appronch  that 
sacred  office.  Num.3:  lOand  I:  51.  '  ButPaul  says  :  (Heb.  7.)  "Christ 
is  a  priest  after  th:  order  Melchisidec  and  not  after  the  order  of  Aaron." 
And  where  is  the  evidence  that  Melchisidec  was  initiated  into  the  priest- 
ly office  by  baptism.— The  apostle  proceeds  (v.  12,)  "For  the  priesthoo.l 
being  chaiigcd,  there  was  made  of  necessity  a  change  also  of  the  law." — 
Hence,  Christ  was  not  "made  [or  constituted]  a  priest  after  the  law  of  a 
carnal  commandmr  nt,  but  after  the  power  of  an  endless  life."  (v.  16.)    It 


S7 

is  surprising  that  Pedobaplist  ministers,  standing  in  the  sacrei  desk,  with 
the  Bible  in  their  hands,  will  make  such  unfounded  statements  as  we 
have  heard  on  this  subject. 

Is  it  a  fact,  that  Jesus  Christ  in  his  baptism  is  not  an  example  for  us  to 
follow *?*  In  primitive  times,  Christ  required  his  disciples  to  follow  him. 
And  it  is  said  tliat  "they  forsook  all  and  followed  him."'  The  apostles 
affirm  positively  that  "they  received  from  the  Lord  what  they  delivered 
to  the  Churches"— I  Cor.  11 :  23.  15  :  3.  They  commended  those  that 
•'  kept  the  ordinances  as  they  were  delivered"  and  exhorted  all  to  be  fol- 
lowers of  them,  as  they  were  of  Christ.— I  Cor.  11:  1,2.  4:  16,17.— 
Phil.  3:  17.  Col  2: "5, 8,  11.  2  Thes.  2  :  15.- The  Baptists  desire  to 
share  in  the  felicity  of  those  of  whom  it  will  one  day  be  said,  "These  are 
they  which  follow'the  Lamb  whithersoever  he  goeth." 

Pedobaptist. — My  friend,  the  objection  urged  against  the  propriety  of 
imitating  the  example  of  Christ  in  baptism,  which  you  have  just  answer- 
ed, was  presented,  not  because  I  considered  it  a  valid  one,  but  because  my 
Pedobaptist  brethren  usually  deemed  it  such. — I  v.-ill  now  present  another 
argument,  on  which  they  place  great  stress.  Water  baptism  is  a  symbol 
of  spiritual  baptism.  This  being  the  case,  is  it  not  evident,  that  the  mode 
of  water  b-iptism  should  correspond  to  the  mode  of  spiritual  baptisml — 
Now,  it  is  a  fact,  that  throughout  the  Bible,  the  mode  of  spiritual  baptism 
is  represented  under  the  figure  of  pouring  out.  Hence,  baptism  must  be 
pouring.— The  biptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  v/as  also  performed  by  pour- 
ing.— Again  the  baptism  of  the  Israelites  "in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea" 
(f  Cor.  10  :  1,2.)  w'as  pouring,  for  the  Psalmist  in  giving  an  account  of 
thisbiplism  .says,  "the  clouds  poured  out  water." — Psalm.  77  :  18-20. 

Baptist. — My  brorher,  this  is  a  very  ppecious  theory  but  is  it  true  that 
oaplismis  pouring,  because  the  Holy  Spirit  is  said  iohe  poured  out?  if  so 
it  ought  by  no  means  to  b3  rejected.  "  Unfortunately,  if  this  position  taken 
by  you,  Pedob:iptisls,  be  admitted,  it  proves  too  much,  for  without  any 
ceremony,  it  turns  out  of  your  churches  as  defeciive,  sprinliling,  immer- 
sion, etc.,  and  virtually  condemns  the  baptism  practised  by  the  Christian 
world  for  thirteen  centuries,  if  we  except  the  baptism  affusion  oi Novatian 
and  other  clinics,  respecting  the  validity  of  whose  baptism  there  was  so 
much  contention  in  the  Church. 

I  am  avv'are,  my  friend,  that  many  Pedobaptists  suppose  that  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  emblematical' of  Christian  baptism  ;  but  this  position 
we  think  cannot  be  sustained  by  the  Bible,  for  the  spirit  of  inspiration 
never  once  attempts  to  explain  or  represent  natiLrnl  things  by  presenting 
.<)h-iiuil,  but  contrary  wise,  he  not  uni'requently  explains  or  represents  the 
ejects  oi  spiritual  things  by  an  exhibition  of  natural  things,  and  their  ef- 
fects. 

Again,  it  is  the  opinion  of  many,  that  regeneration  by  the  Spirit's  influ- 
ences, is  the  bapiism  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  regeneration  is  never  called 
in  the  Scriptures  by  this  nam.e.  Hence  it  is  evident  that  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  must  hd  a  different  and  distinct  thing  from  regeneration. 
It  is  also  evident,  that  there  has  been  nothing  that  the  Oracles  of  truth  call 
•  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit"  since  the  day  of  Pentecost  or  at  least  the 
Apostolic  age.     Hence,  we  infer,  and  confidently  believe,  that  this  bap- 

*  It  is  notorious  in  history,  that  from  the  days  of  Paul,  Rom.  6:  4,— 
down  to  the  fifteenth  century,  comparatively  the  vvhole  Christian  world 
regarded  it  their  duty  to  imitate  the  example  of  Christ  in  baptism. 


88 

lism  was  confined  to  tbe  nge  of  miracles ;  and  that  there  is  no  biplisin  of 
ihe  Ho!  V  Spirit  in  these  da}'":;.  Those  who  aftirm  that  there  is,  we  call 
upon  to  prove  if.* 

"  Tlie  bipiism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  isa  fi:?uralive  expression,  and  expli- 
cable on  the  principle  of  immersion."  Now  it  must  be  obvious  to  every 
one,  that  the  literal  sense  of  a  word  must  control  its  figurative  application; 
and  we  have  ascertained  the  liioral  meaning  of  baptism  to  be  im.raersion, 
and  that  too,  by  the  most  learned  jury,  we  could  empannel  Irom  the  Pedo- 
baptisL  world.  No  man  in  the  first  15  or  IG  Centuries,  ever  dreamed  or 
suspected  that  this  Greek  word  had  any  other  meaning  ;  and  even  the 
Greeks  at  this  present  day  remain  ignorant  of  it.  Hence  the  baptism  of 
the  Spirit,  must  have  reference  to  iMMEKSio.v,  because  that  is  the  literal 
meaning  of  the  word; 

Finally,  my  Iriend,  the  idea  that  the  b  iptism  of  the  Israelites  w^as  pour- 
ing, because  the  Psalmist  says  the  clouds  poured  out  water,  is  palpably 
absurd.  For  the  cloiids  wliich  the  Psalmist  mentions  could  not  have  been 
the  cloud  which  Paul  says  the  Israelites  were  baptized  into,  in  connection 
with  the  Sea.  Now  to  suppos?  that  this  clcxid  poured  out  or  sprinkled 
water  upon  the  Israelites,  is  to  suppose  what  cannot  b^  true;  tor  in  that 
case,  they  could  not  have  i^one  o  i  dry  (rroxind  ihrouuh  Hie  midst  of  the  sea. — 
(See  Ex.  14:  IG,  23,  29.)  Again  they  could  not  h"tve  b?en  sprinkled 
from  the  spray  of  the  sea  for  I h.c  waters  Wv-re  congealed.  Ek.  15:  8. — 
Prol.  Smart,  pp.  S3G,  says  :  =' The  suggestion  has  sometimes  been  made 
that  the  Israelites  were  sprinkled  by  the  cloud  and  by  the  sea;  and  this 
was  the  bipiism  which  Paul  m.e.int  to  designate.  But  the  cloud  on  this 
occasion  was  not  a  cloud  of  rain  ;  nor  do  we  find  any  intimation  thai  the 
waters  of  the  Red  Sea  sprinkled  the  children  of  Israel , at  this  time."  And 
io  is  evident  from  the  whole  account  that  no  water  touched  them.  Hence 
we  conclude  that  this  was  ■:xji-^ur  active  b'p;i?ra.    And  w?  cannot  conceive 


*  John  predicted  that  Christ  "should  baptize  (e.i)  kn?  the  Boly  Ghost  and 
I'ire."  Now  it  is  obvious  from  the  account  given  ofthi^  bapiism  in  Acts 
0  :  2,  3,  4,  t  iat  there  was  no  literal  sprinkling  or  pouring  out  of  the  Holij 
Ghost  and  Fire  upon  the  people.  The  figure  evidently  refers  to  an  im- 
mcrsio.i  as  it  represents  the  abundance  of  the  gilts  and  influences  of  tlie 
Spirit,  We,  in  likesnanner,  use  the  word  immerse.  When  a  man  has 
.•:n  abundance  of  business  on  hand  we  say  ke  is  immersed  in  business.  Bap- 
liz)  as  clearly  implies  immersion  in  this  passage  as  in  any  other.  In 
precisely  this  sen^e  did  the  Greek  fathers  understand  it ;  and  the\' cer- 
tainly could  not  have  mistaken  its  literal  import.  'i'nKOPHYf.ACT,  in  his 
exposition  of  this  pas^;age,  Matt.  3:  11,  says:  "That  is,  he  shall  inundate 
^•ou.  t.oid:stl  kaLaklusciv,m.as,zih'.in&?in\\y  with  the  gifts  ol  the  Spirit,  Cy- 
lUL,  (vvho  w^as  for  twenty  years  past ar  "of  the  church  at  Jerusalem)  about 
A.  D.  371,  Cateches.  17:  8,  says:  "For  as  ht;  that  goes  down  into  the 
v/ater  and  is  baptized,  is  surrounded  on  all  sides  by  the  water,  so  the  apos- 
tles were  totally  biptized  (immersed)  by  the  Spirit.  The  water  surrounds 
the  b'jJy  exteriially,  but  the  Spiri:  incomprehensibly  baptizes  (immerses) 
the  soul  within."  Even  some  modern  Pedob":ptists  who  practise  sprink- 
ling understand  it  in  this  sense.  Abp.  Tii.lotson  :  "i/  [the  sound  from 
heaven,  Acts  2:  2.]7i^^£?  r/.'Z  ^',g /.c?/s^  This  is  that  which  our  Savior 
cM>^b'}l'zing  with  t'.e  Hdy  Gh<st.  So  that  they  who  sat  in  the  house 
were,  as  it  were,  immer-cd  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  they  w  ho  were  buried 
with  water,  were  overwhelmed  and  covered  all  over  with  water,  which 
is  [he  proper  notion  oJ  biptism."     Sj  C.\s.iUBON,  and  others. 


89 

that  it  can  b;  expuLiued  on  any  oher  prhiciple  than  that  it  has  a  reference 
to  imm2r>iorL.=* 

Pedoba^  tls' . — "SVhy  is  the  Spirii  said  to  be  poured  out  upcn  mer.,  if  the 
pouring  out  of  u'ater'does  not  resemble  ii'? 

Baptist.  —I'he  Spirit  is  said  to  be  'poicrcd  out  not  becau^e  tV.ere  is  any 
rctua'l  pouring:,  which  is  represenlGd  by  fouring  out  water  in  baptism ; 
bat  from  the  resemblance  between  the  effects  of  water  poured  upon  cer- 
tain objects,  and  the  influence  or  operatioas  of  the  Spirit.  When  water 
is  pouieJ  out  upon  vegetables  it' causes  them  to  grow  atid  flourish.  So 
wh-en  God  communicates  of  his  spirii  to  men  'ut  causes  them  to  spring 
up  as  willows  bv  the  water  courses"— 'io  grow  in  grace,  and  in  the  knowl- 
edge oi  our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ,  Isa.  41 :  3,  4.  Mai.  3 :  10,  11; 
r3.  Here  the  effects  cf  the  one  resemble  the  effects  of  the  oll'er.  Again 
our  Savior  (toraparesthe  effecis  of  the  spirit,  to  the  effects  produced  by  the 
wind,  Jobn  3  :  8.  But  do  3-ou  srppose,  my  brother,  that  v.'e  can  represent 
the  mode  of  the  Spirit's  operation?  by  baptism'?  If  this  could  be  done,  the 
Spirit  must  be  literally  poured  cut;  and  if  the  Spirit  is  literally  poured 
out,  then  it  foUovcs  as  a  consequence  that  God  must  be  material.  Hence 
it  is  obvious  thatlhis  whole  theory  is  fotfnded  upon  the  absurd  hypothesis 
that  God  is  a  material  being — for  we  crm  form  no  conception  how  an 
immaterial  Omnipresent  Spirit  can  be  poured  out  upon  man.  Out  of 
what  can  he  b?  pouredl  Surely  out  of  nothing.  Hence  on  the  admission 
that  God  is  immaterial,  it  is  evident  that  this  theory  has  nothing  better  to 
rest  upon  than  "the  baseless  fabric  of  a  vision  "  Now  it  i-^  generally  ad- 
mitted ihnt  God  is  an  immaterial  spirit.  Who  then  can  coniprehend  the 
mode  of  His  existence,  or  the  mode  of  His  uperaiions?  V7e  can  neithei 
comprehend  tlic  existence,  nor  operaiionsol  our  own  spirit  much  less  that 
of  the  Eternal  Spirit,  Hence,  no  one  can  know  c'lemode  ol  the  Spirit's 
operations,  for  fiom  the  nature  of  the  subject,  it  infinitely  transcends  the 
conceptions  of  all  finite  rninds.  Hence  the  ineffable  absurdity  of  attempt- 
ing to  symbolize  or  repre  ent  the  Spirit's  operations  by  v/ater  baptism. 

Suppose,  however,  we  were  to  carry  out  this  theory  of  Pedobapiists, 
viz:  that  the  mode  ff  the  Spirit's  operations,  or  rather  that  the  words 
used  to  designate  itsconveyanee  or  coramunicition,  is  designed  to  teach 
us  the  mode  of  water  baptism.  Then  we  should  have  modes  of  bap'knn 
in  abundance ;  because  the  communication  of  the  spirit  is  indicated  by 

*  ARCziRisri  'P  NcwjoMB  says,  "  They,"  the  Israelites,  '  =  were  figurative- 
ly and  typical!)^  baptized;  they  were  led  to  acknowk-dge  the  divine  mis- 
sion of  Moses  through  the-e  m.i.-acles  expres,>ive  of  baptism."     Bloom- 
field  adds,  '-The  material  of  the  cloud' and  sea,  being  nothing  but  water, 
was  well  adapted  to  express  this  typical  representaiijn  of  baptism."  And 
Prof.  Stuart  admits  that  it  has  "  reference  to  the   vlez\.  oi  surrounding."' 
WiTsius,  in  his  exposition,  inquires  "How  were  the  Israelites  bapU.^- 
cd  IN  THE  CLOUD,  and  IN  THE  SEA,  Seeing  they  were  neither  immersed  in  the 
sea,  nor  wetted  by  the  cloudl"  and  replies,  "  It  is  to  be   considered,  thr.t 
the  apostle  here  uses  the  term  'baptism' in  a  figurative  sense  ;  yet  there  is 
some  agreement  to  the  external  sign.     The  sea  is  water,  and  a  cloul  dif- 
fers but  little  from  water.     The  cloud  huns  over  their  heads,  and  the  sea 
surrounded  them  on  each  side;  and  so  the  water  in  regard  to  tho.se  that 
are  baptized."     i\nd  Dh.  WHiTEvrdds:  "Their  going  into  the  sea  resem- 
bled the  ancient  rile  of  going  into  the  v^ater ;   and  their  coming  out  of  it, 
the  rising  up  cut  of  it."     The  same  x'iew^  of  this  passage  is  substantially 
entertaiiied  by  the  learned  Gbotius,  Prof.  Venema,  Dr.  Hammond,  Pool's 
CoNTiNUATORs,  Gataker,  Tcrretinus,  acd  many  others,  all  Pedobaptists, 


so 


■•'Extend,'"  Isa.  G6 :  12.  (  'Breath  on,"  John  20  :  22.  (  "Fell  on,"  ActJ 
'^Silting:,"  Acts  ^2:  3.  }  "Came,"  Acts  2:  2.  ^"Giving,"  do 
'';<end  upon,"  L.  24:49  (  "Shed  forth,"  Acts  2:  23.  (  -'Sealing,"  Epl 


mmy  other  words  beside?  pouring.     Among  which  we  name  the  follow- 
ing 

■•'Extend."  Isa.  GG :  12.  C  "Breath  on,"  John  20  :  22.  (  "Fell  on,"  Acts  8:  44. 

15:  8. 
'Sealing,"  Eph.l:  1,' 

Now  if  the  mode  of  baptism  should  be  pourinj?  because  the  Spirit  is 
.said  to  be  poured  out,  then  extending  should  be  another  mode  for  the 
.same  reason  ;  2  modes.  Sitiing,  another ;  3  modes.  Sending  upon,  ano- 
ther; 4  modes.  Breathing  on,  5.  Coming,  6,  Shedding  forth,  7. — 
Palling  on,  8.  Giving,  0.  Sealing,  10.  Now,  how  can  water  baptism 
represent  each  of  these  10  modes'?  ^How  can  it  represent  breathing,  sit- 
ting, etc.  Il  is  evident  from  these  passages,  tljal  God  intends  to  inform 
us  that  there  is  an  actual  communication  of  the  Spirit;  and  not  the  mode 
ol  that  [Spirit's  operations  or  convej'ance.  For  these  things  cannot  be 
s3'mbolized  by  natural  things.  "There  is  no  likeness  to  a  Spirit,  nor  to 
tiie  mode  of  his  operations.  Itwouldbeas  easy  to  make  a  likeness  of 
God  creating  the  world,  and  attempt  to  represent  by  a  picture  the  divine 
operations,  in  the  formation  of  matter,  as  to  represent  by  symbols  the 
manner  of  the  communication  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  his  operations  on 
the  soul.  If  Christians  were  not  infatuated  with  the  desire  ot  establish- 
ing a  favorite  system,  so  gross  concfptions  of  God  could  not  have  so  long 
escaped  de'ectijn," 

Again,  m.y  friend,  Pedobaptists  "confound  things  thai  are  different." 
Water  \?.  poured  into  a  bath  or  vessel  for  the  purpose  of  immersing  the 
feet  or  body  but  the  iinvierslon  is  not  the  pouring.  Again  if  baptism 
.should  be  by  pouring,  why  do  not  Pcdobaptist  ministers  say  I  pour  thee  in 
the  name,  etc.  But  can  persons  be  poured  like  liquMs?  Finally,  if  pour- 
ing be  baptism  why  did  not  the  Holy  Spirit  use  the  word  cllco  or  ec'ieo 
which  is  expressive  of  that  action. 

Pcdobantis',. — My  dear  brother,  if  baptism  means  pouring,  sprinkling, 
etc.,  Vviiat  benefit  would  result  from  using  the  terms  you  mention'?  Bui 
wlint  pleases  you'? 

liaplist  — Why  to  hear  you  say  if  it  means  thu.s  and  so,  when  you  know 
very  vvell  thatitmeans  no  such  ihing.  I  presume  you  are  aware,  that  it 
is  a  general  law  in  language,  that  if  we  substitute  the  actual  meaning  of  a 
word  for  (he  word,  that  it  will  make  good  sense.     For  example. 

The  people  congregate  at  half  past  10  o'clock,  the  SQimQw  commences  at 
11  and  the  services  co/(c/'«fl!c  at  noon.  The  people  ft.ss^wiZ'Ze  at  half  past 
10  o'clock,  the  sermon  begin!;  at  11   and  the  services  end  at  m'dday. 

Let  us  now  test  the  xvords  j)Our  and  sprinkle.  If  baptism  is  pouring, 
then  pouring  is  baptism,  and  so  of  sprinkling.  It  is  a  very  common  ex- 
j^rcssion.  He  poured  or  sprinkled  water  on  oy  upon  the  man.  (Read 
Matt.  2G  :  7.  Rev.  IG  :  2,  3,  4.  Ezek.  3G  :  25.)  It  is  perfectly  obvious  in 
this  case,  that  the  wa'er  is  the  object  that  is  applied  to  the  man.  Now,  if 
the  actual  impjit  of  baptism  \'s,  pouring  or  sprinkling,  then  read  the  sen- 
I'^nce  by  sub:;tituting-the  word  BAPTiZK  for  pour  ovsprnkle,  and  it  will 
make  good  sense.  ''-He  baptized  wziler  upon  the  m^n."  This  would  be 
ilie  natural  construction.  The  absurdity  of  ihissentence  is  too  obvious  to 
need  any  remark.  The  water  in  this  case  is  said  to  be  baptized.  Gluery, 
how  do  you  baptize  (immerse)  wated 

Again  it  is  very  properly  said,  the  ministerbaptized  the  candidate  (en) 
in  (ov  els)  into  water.  (See  Matt.  3  :  G.  Mark  1 :  5,  9.)  It  is  evident  in 
this  case,  that  the  candidate  was  the  object  applied,  ov  put  into  the  water. 
Let  us  now  read  this  .sentence  by  substituting  the  Avord  poured  and  sprin- 
kled for  baptized,    "  The  minster  sprinkled,  or  pour 


poured  the  candidate  it\ 


91 

or  inlo  the  water."  Oserve  here  the  candidate  is  said  to  be  sprinkled  ot 
poured  iii  or  inio  the  water,  like  salt,  molasses,  honev  or  some  liquid. — 
(SeeEzek.24:  3.  John  13:  5.  Lu'.^e  10:  34.)  Out  ol  what  is  he  pouredl 
Where  is  the  minister  compeient  to  perform  this  workl  Wiiat  can  be 
more  ab>u id  than  the  idea  ot  pourin^:  or  sprinkling:  men  into  waterl— 
(Read  Rom.  6:  3,  4,  by  sabstiiiitin^  pour  and  sprink'e  for  baptize — also 
I  Cor.  10:  3.     1-J  :  13.  GcA.  3:  27.  Eph.  4:5.) 

Let  us  now  bring  the  words  immerse,  dip  and  plunge  to  this  test.  The 
minister  baptized  ;he  candidate  in  or  into  the  water.  By  substituting  the 
words f/;i'?,'C/-se  r/z';',  etc.,  \oy  baptize  \i  wiil  read  thus.  The  minister  i7?z- 
mersed,  dipped,  or  plunged  tlie  candidate  in  or  into  the  water.  Thib  makes 
good  sense,  and  does  not  muider  the  king's  English.  But  how  absurd  the 
construction  of  the  tollowing  phrase.  The  i.  inister  baptized,  immersed, 
dipp-d,  plunged  or  S7i6vierged  water  upoji  the  candido:te.  Now,  if  pouring 
or  sprinkling  is  baptism,  this  phrase  is  actually  correct. — (Read  the  fol- 
lowing passas^es  of  Scripture  by  substituting  each  of  the  following  words, 
baptize,  irnniere,  phiwe,  dip,  or  submerge  for  the  words  sprinkle  and  pour. 
Ex.9:  8.  Lev-.  14:  7,  15,  IG,  18,27.  Num.  S:  7.  Jer.  18:  21.  Mic. 
1:  6.  Lam.  4:  1.  Matt.  2G :  7.  Luke  10:  34.  John  2:  15.  8:5. 
Rev.  14  :  10.  16:  2.)  Is  it  not  ostensibly  plain,  Irom  these  illustrations, 
that  neither  pouring,  nor  sprinkling,  is  baptism"? 

Pedobaptist. — The  passages  you  refer  lo  I  will  read  as  you  request,  at 
my  leisure.  But  notwithstanding  your  striking  illustraiion.s  stili  you 
know  it  is  often  said,  "he  was  poured,"  "he  vvas  sprinkled."  Again,  you 
know  it  is  said,  "I  indeed  baptize  you  ivith  water."  Is  it  not  evident  that 
water  in  this  place  is  the  object  applied  to  the  man,  and  not  man  lo  the 
water 

Ba.ptid. — It  is  true,  we  sometimes  hear  such  expressions,  but  the  pecu- 
liar idiom  of  our  language  has  been  strangely  warped,  to  conform  the 
words  pour  and  sprinkle  to  the  common  use  of  the  lermbapiize.  We  can 
speak  with  propriety  of  liquids  and  of  most  things  pulverized  or  capable 
of  being  measured  in  a  vessel,  beingpoured  ;  but  we  cannot  withcongru- 
ity  say  this  of  a  stand,  table,  ship,  or  man.  Is  it  not  evident,  that  these 
objects  can  be  baptized,  i.  e.  iinrr„':rs:d,  b'Uthat  they  cannot  be  sprinkledot 
poured  unless  pulverized  or  converted  into  liquids.  Again,  is  it  not  plain 
that  coaler  cannot  be  baptized,  bat  that  it  can  be  poured  or  sprinkled.  Now 
it  must  be  perfectly  obvious  to  every  one,  that  there  is  such  a  marked  dif- 
ference between  what  can  be  done  and  what  camiotbs  done,  that  they  can- 
not be  one  and  the  sama  thin?.* 

*  Let  us  illustrate  this  po>iiion  by  examining  the  following  quotation 
from  Lev.  11 :  15,  16,  in  which  the  words  pour,  dip  and  sprinkle  occur  jin 
juxtaposition.  "  And  the  priest  shall  take  some  of  the  log  of  oil  and  (epi- 
chce,)  pour  it  ^.'^^fl  the  palm  of  his  own  lelt  hand:  And  the  priest  shall  {bap- 
ici.)  dip  his  right  finger  in  the  oil  that  is  in  his  left  hand,  and  shall  {ranci) 
sprinkle  of  the  oil  with  his  finger  seven  times  before  the  Lord."  Now  if 
baptize  (from  ^a^;;'^  or  ^^/:;/?>o)  means  cither  pour  or  sprinkle,  then  the 
priest  sprinkled  or  poured  his  finger  in  the  oil.  And  in  order  to  do  that, 
he  must  first  have  pulverized  his  finger ;  and  when  tins  was  done,  and 
the  finger  poured  or  sprinkled  inio  his  1  and,  it  is  evident  that  he  had  not 
the  finger  to  sprinkle  or  baptize  ot  the  oil  sevtn  times  before  the  Lord. 
Hence  ihe  Lord  on  this  supposition  required  an  absolute  im^poz^xhiWly  of 
him.  What  can  be  more  palpably  preposterous  than  this'?  Is  it  not  evi- 
dent, that  each  of  these  words  has  a  dehnite,  specific  importi  The  prin- 
ciple  Df  interpretation  adopted  bv  some  Pedobaptisis,  relative  to  the 
word  b:ip'.ize.  if  carried  out  would  m'jke  the  Bible  a  senseless  jargon. 


92 

With  regard  (o  the  expression  '-baptize  you  with  water,"  I  have  shown 
that  tiie  Greek  preposition  c?i  translated  wit'i  ought  to  have  been  transla- 
ted in,  that  it  was  so  translated  in  the  earlier  versions  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment.— It  is  so  rendered  by  Dr.  Campbell,  by  Prof.  Roninson,  by  Mr. 
Henry,  by  Tyndal,  as  we  have  before  noticed,  by  Montanus  and  also  by 
Barnes.    (See  note,  on  Mitt.  3  :  6.) 

The  expressions  ''c«  vdaii,''  and  "en  to  Jourdane*^  occur  in  connection 
with  baptizo,  ten  times  in  the  New  Testament,  had  they  been  literaP^' 
translated  as  they  oui,'ht  to  have  been  they  would  have  read  "i?i  water,'' 
etc.  Sprinkling  then  could  have  found  no  foothold.  But  if  en  means 
with  as  you  contend  then  it  will  make  good  sense  by  placing  it  in  itssiead. 
Accordingto  ^'.?s  Matt,  says  that  the  people  were  "all  baptized  of  him 
[John]  ttvM  Jordan,"  and  Mark  adds  ''wit')  the  river  Jordan."  Again 
John  was  baptizing  with  Enon,"  etc.— "In  those  days  came  John  the  bap- 
tist preaching  v)ilh  the  wilderness," — '-The  voice  of  one  crying  loitk 
the  wilderness,"  etc.  Can  it  be  shat  John  the  Baptist,  baptized  with  Enon 
-  v-itk  Jorda7i—and  w  th  the  river  Jordan,  and  that  he  or  ed  with,  and 
preached  w  I'l  t':e  wilderness.  No  one  can  fail  to  seethe  incongruity  of 
ihes.^  expressions. 

Pcdobaptist. — My  friend,  \ienudali  ought  to  have  been  translated  with 
water,  why  was  it  not  so  translated  in  our  present  English  version? 

Baptist. — My  brother,  you  doubtlessly  recollect  the  account  we  gave  of 
the  first  introductic  n  of  sprinkling  into  England.  After  that,  very  many 
of  the  Bishops  of  the  English  Episcopal  Church,  adopted  Calvin's  subsli- 
tutc  of  a  substlhLte,  and  in  1568  issued  a  translation  of  the  Bible,  in  which 
they  made  several  perversions,  evidently  to  favor  sprinkling,  and  among 
others  translated  en  toi'Ji  when  connected  with  baptism,  in  every  instance 
but  three,  and  would  probably  have  done  it  in  those,  if  they  could,  with- 
out their  perversions  appearing  too  glaring.  Our  present  English  transla- 
tion, prepared  by  the  command  of  King  James,  was  issued  in  1611.  The 
translators  of  this  version  were  required  to  follow  the  Bishops'  Bible  and 
to  alter  it,  as  little  as  the  original  would  permit ;  and  "to  retain  the  old 
ecclesiastic  words."  The  word  church  was  not  to  be  translated  congre- 
gation, and  the  term  baptism  of  course  was  included.*  And  they  merely 
copied  the  Bishops'  translation  oien,  laith  and  all  their  other  perversions, 
evidently  intended  to  favor  sprinkling.t     But    notwithstanding  all  these 

*A11  the  ancient  Eastern  versions  render  ihe  Greek  word  bapiizo  in 
the  sense  of  dipping -S'e^  9ob.  Hist.  Bap.  Lond.,  1790.  All  of  the  valuable 
modern  Protestant  translations,  if  we  except  the  Vulgate,  and  the  other 
VVesiern  versions  modelled  after  i',  among  which  is  our  authorized  Eng- 
lish version  which  retains  the  Greek  terms.  "Bat,  though  these  versions 
forsake  the  track  of  the  Oriental  versions,  it  is  not,  as  is  well  known,  be- 
cause the  translators  understood  the  terms  in  another  sense.  To  say 
nothing  ofcontinental  scholar^:,  whe'.her  Romanists  or  Protestants,  the 
fathers  of  the  Anglician  church  WiclitT,  Tyndal,  Cranmer,  and  others 
speak  plainly  on  this  subject,  and  so  to  this  day  does  the  book'  of  common 
[irayer,"  as  well  as  very  many  of  the  most  learned  Pedobiplist  divines,  as 
we  have  seen, 

t  The  most  bold  and  glaring  perversion  in  our  translation,  evidently 
made  to  sanction  sprinkling  as  baptism,  is  found  in  Isa.  5'3  :  15.  "So 
shall  he  (t/ianniazontai)  sprinkle  vnany  nations,"  etc.  According  to  Ge- 
senius,  it  reads  in  the  Hebrew—"  So  shall  he  cause  many  nations  to  re- 
joice in  himself.  "--By  referring  to  this  passage  in  the  Septuagint  you 
will  find  that  the  word  in  it.   translated    ijrinklc,   is  Thauviaz-.ntai,  from 


93 

perversions  retailed  in  two  translations,  with  all  the  exertions  of  the 
Bishops,  it  was  not  till  about  1640,  nearly  a  century  from  the  commence- 
ment of  sprinkling  among  them,  b,fore  they  could  prevail  upon  the  Brit- 
ish Parliament  to  pass  a  law  enforcing  it. 

Pedobaptist. — Your  remarks  respecting  the  inconsistency  of  translating 
en  7<;ii'i  appear  very  appropriate.  Indeed  I  ;^ee  no  good  reason  why  this 
preposition  should  be  translated  in  in  the  phrases  "i?t  Jordrn" — ''in  th'. 
"cildeiness,^'  and  tvilk  in  the  phrases  2ci:h  xoder — with  tin  Holy  Ghost.  It 
appears  to  me  that  it  would  have6es?t  appropriate,  if  it  had  been  translated 
i?i  water— m  the  Holy  Ghost;  but  very  inappropriate,  if  it  had  been 
translated  xoith  the  Jordan,  etc.  Still  I  am  very  far  from  admitting  that 
en  always  signifies  in,  for  frequently  it  signifies  at,  with,  by,  etc.  But  as 
you  have  referred  to  the  baptism  of  Christ  and  the  Eunuch,  and  placed  a 
considerable  stress  on  the  literal  import  of  the  Greek  preposition  ezs  to 
prove  that  they  were  immersed,  and  that  immersion  only  is  baptism,  and 
passed  over  the  pi  ep&sition  e/i;  and  especially  «/?>,  1  would  call  your  at- 
tention to  this  subject  again.  You  know  that  the  literal  import  of  apo  is 
from  and  e/s  is  very  frequently  rendered  to,  near,  or  unto. — Now  if  John 
and  Christ  came  only  (apo)  from  the  vrater,  it  is  evident  that  they  went 
on\Y  {eis)to\i.  Hence "Pliilip  had  no  occasion  to  go  farther  with  the 
Ethiopian  nobleman  than  John  did  with  our  Savior,  in  order  to  the  ad- 
ministration of  baptism.  It  is  reasonable,  then,  to  understand  the  eis  and 
the  ek  ol  Acts  8  :  33,  39,  as  signifying  precisely  what  is  indicated  b}  the 
apo  of  Matt.  3  :  16."  Now  if  e-s  signifies  to  in  this  baptism  of  the  Eunuch, 
then e^■  must  signify /"ro??i;  for  "wher.ver  eis  and  ek  correspond  to  each 
other,"  says  Mr.  Ewins",  'Hhe  extent  of  the  one  must  measure  the  extent 
of  the  other."  •  Hence  Pedobaptisls  say  that  it  is  evident,  that  Christ  and 
John,  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  went  down  only  to  the  wacer,  to  attend  to 
the  administration  of  this  ordinance. 

Baptist. — My  friend,  this  argument  is  built  upon  the  supposition  that 
apo  is  the  only  key  that  will  unlock  the  meaning  of  the  prepositions  eis,  en, 
and  ek,  used  in  connection  with  the  verb  baptizo.  Now,  you  will 
not  deny  that  the  primary,  usuil  signification  of  the  preposition  en\s  in,  ek, 
out  of,  eis,  into,  and  of  the  verb  iaj^^tro,  immerse.  Hencethe  primary,  usual 
import  of  these  three  prepositions  and  the  verb  are  decidedly  in  our  favor. 
Is  it  not  incredible  and  even  absurd  then,  to  suppose  that  the  Spirit  of  in- 
spiration would  use  these  three  prepositions,  and  the  verb  itself,  in  an  un- 
usual sense,  \\\\en  there  were  other  v/ords  belter  suited  to  his  purpose,  if 
he  did  not  design  to  express  immersion?  Now,  what  can  be  more  prepos- 
terous, than  to  attempt  to  set  aside  the  primary,  literal  import  ol  the  verb 
baptizo,  and  the  prepositions  e?i,«s,  and  c/t',  used  in  connection  with  it, 
in  order  to  make  them  all  conform  to  the  usual  import  of  the  preposition 
apo  used  in  the  account  of  the  baptism  of  our  Saviour.  Now,  that  apo 
is  frequently  and  correctly  translated  out  of  is  evident  from  the  following 


Thaumazo  which  means  to  admire.  It  is  in  the  plural  number  agreeing 
with  the  noun  nations-,  and  literally  rendered,  it  would  read, — "So  shall 
many  nations  be  astonished  or  surprized  at  him,  and  kings  shall  shut  their 
mouths  at  him,'' etc.  A  parallel  passage  occurs  in  Luke  9:  43.  John 
7  :  21.  "I  have  done  one  work  and  ye  all  (Maumazeti)  inarvel."  Sub- 
stitute sprinkle  for  marvel  in  this  passage.  The  same  verb  is  rendered 
?narvel  in  John  3  :  7.  Acts  3  :  12.  Gal.  1 :  6.— The  word  T,)aumazoha9; 
not  the  most  distant  allusion  to  sprinkle;  and  the  world  might  be  safely 
challenged,  to  produce  another  example  in  which  it  was  ever  so  transla- 
ted. 


94 

passages.  Malt.  14:29,  And  when  Peler  was  come  (apo)  out  of  iht 
^hip,  etc.  Luke  8  :  2,  Mary  called  Magdalene,  (apo)  out  of  whom  went 
5:even  devils,  etc.  Read  also  verses  12,  38.  Luke  2:  4.  But,  if  we  ad- 
rait  that  it  always  signifies/zcTi  it  does  not  ffjilitate  against  immersion. 
It  is  very  common  in  speaking  uf  a  baptismal  scene  to  say  they  came  up 
?rom  the  water,  but  ihi>  neither  proves  nor  implies  that  they  were  not 
previously  in  the  water,  for  i'uit  is  generally  understood  though  not  ex- 
pressed. "Apo,"  says  Mr.  Carson,  "signifies  the  point  of  departure 
from  an  object,  but  I'hat  point  may  be  in  any  part  of  the  object  to  which 
there  is  access.  If  the  object  be  impenetrable  it  must  be  Irom  the  edge, 
but  if  pencirab'e  the  departure  miy  be  from  any  part  of  it.  If  a  fowl,  on 
the  opposite  side  of  the  river,  or  in  the  middle  of  it  lake  wings,  and  flying 
across  alighis  on  the  hill,  we  say  it  flew  from  the  river,  ju^t  the  same  as 
if  it  had  commenced  its  flight  on  this  side." — It  is  a  common  .saying  that 
this  or  that  "merchant  has  just  come  or  returned //w/i  New  York  with 
new  goods."  Now,  though  strictly  speaking  this  expression  takes  him 
onlyirom  the  edge  of  the  city,  yet  its  general  import  is,  that  he  came  out 
ttf  the  city,  unless  he  states,  that  he  did  not  go  i/iloh.  It  is  in  this  man- 
ner that  (i^?o  is  sometimes  used  to  denote  out  of.  Now  apo  does  not  inva- 
riably indicate  or  signify froni,  nor  does  it  determine  the  import  o[  <:s  to 
mean  to  when  corresponding  to  it.  The  following  passage  will  illustrate 
this  fact.  "Then  went  the  devils  (apo)  from  the  man,  and  entered  (els)  to 
or  mar  ihe  swine."  Luke  8 :  33.  But  what  did  they  cner?  Nothing 
^urely,  unless  they  entered  (eis)  into  the  swine.  Bui  in  v.  30  it  is  said  the 
devils  entered  (cis)  into  the  man.  Now  instead  of  apo's  indicating  that 
eis  raeansto  in  this  phrase  eis  requires  apo  to  mean  cat  of  or  o'xtfroni. — 
From  what  we  have  said,  it  is  evident  that  even  the  use  oi  apo  in  its  usual 
sense,  does  not  interfere  or  contradict  thr  use  of  the  verb  baptizo  and  the 
prepositions  named,  in  their  literal  senst.  But  even  if  it  did  that,  it  would 
be  absurd  to  suppose  that  the  usual  import  of  apo,  thrown  into  one  scale, 
would  outweigh  the  primary  import  of  baptico  and  the  prepositions CTt, 
<!(5 and  eA;  cast  into  the  other.  Now  as  c/s  generally  signifies  ixfo,  it  can 
not  invariably  signify  to;  h?nce  being  ^ndefiititf,  it  cannot  require  ck,  which 
is  definite,  to  jxiean  fro7n,  for  the  indetinite  cannot  limit  the  definite.  But 
cZ;  always  means  fW  <?/.*  Hence  we  will  reverse  your  demonstration. 
'  ■  Wherever  ck  and  eis  correspond  to  each  other  the  extent  ot  the  one  must 
measure  the  extent  of  the  other."  Hence  as^A:  signifies  out  of  in  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Eunuch,  eis  must  signify  uifw.  For  if  they  came  out  of  ihe  wa- 
ter, they  must  have  gone  into  it.  This  position  we  are  confident  cannot 
be  overthrown  ;  for  the  definite  in  this  case  must  limit  the  indefinite. 

My  brother,  by  adopting  the  expedient  you  have,  to  set  aside 
the  evidence  in  favor  of  immersion,  (derived  from  the  plain  obvious 
meaning  of  theterm  baptizo  and  three  of  the  prepositions  out  of  the  four 
used  in  connection  with  it,)  you  have  adopted  and  sanctioned  a  rule  which 
if  carried  out  in  its  application,  by  the  eneinics  of  the  Cross, 
would  overthrow  all  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Bible.  The  Uni- 
versalist  can  prove  by  it  thct  "the  wicked  shall  s:o  away  only  (eis)  to  or 
7icar  everlasting  punishment,  but  nol  into  it. — The  Unitarian,  that  the 
Father  was  only  (en)  by  or  icith  Christ,  but  not  in  him;  thai  Christ  was 
only  (m)    by  or  with    the     Father  but    not    in    him.    John  14:  11. — 

*  Mr.  Carson  has  proved  this  very  conclusively  in  his  examination  of 
the  examples  contained  in  Mr.  Ewing's  Appendix  alleged  to  prove  that  ek 
sometimes  signifies/roOT  and  is  synonymous  with  apo.  Read  from  page 
■213to2:26  of  his  treatise  on  Bap. 


95 

The  Infidel,  that  Noah  and  his  family,  etc.;  only  entered  (eis)  to  or  tiear 
The  ark,  but  not  into  it— that  the  Israelites  and  the  Egyptians  only  entered 
(eis)  tn  or  near  the  Red  Sea  but  not  into  it,  etc. — that  Jonah  was  only 
thrown  (eis)  to  or  near  the  Sea,  but  not  into  it — that  Daniel  was  only  cast 
{eis)  to  or  near  the  lion's  den  but  not  {71^0  it,  &c.  «&c. 

Again,  as  the  translators  of  the  New  Testament  into  our  language, 
were  Pedobaptists,  they  would  not  be  likely  to  translate  these  prepositions- 
'n  such  a  manner,  as  to  have  them  speak  decidedly  against  their  own 
practice,  unless  compelled  to  do  so  by  conscience  and  the  plain  obvious 
import  of  the  original.  When,  therefore,  these  translators  inform  us  that 
John  baptized  tn  the  river  Jordan— thai  they  came  (epi)  to  the  water,  and 
went  down  {eis)  into  the  water,  and  after  baptism,  came  up(ek)  out  of  the 
water,  etc.,  we  conclude  that  the  original  was  so  plain,  that  they  felt  com- 
pelled to  translate  it  thus. 

But,  my  friend,  as  a  further  illustration  of  the  incongruity  of  rendering 
these  prepositions  by  the  definitions  you  assign  to  them,  let  us  read  the 
following  narrative,  Luke  8:  29,  30—34.  Mark  5:  13.  "For  he  had 
commanded  the  unclean  Spirit  to  come  (apo)  from,  but  not  out  of  the 
man."  '•  He  was  driven  of  the  devils  ((?i5)  ^0  or  7iear,  but  not  into  the 
wilderness.  *  *  *  many  devils  were  entered  (efs)  ^0  or  Tiear,  but  noi  into 
liim."  But  what  did  they  enter  and  come  from  or  otU  ofii  not  the  man? 
*'  And  they  besought  him  that  he  would  not  command  them  to  go  out  {eis) 
t&  or  nearihe  deep.  And  there  was  there  a  herd  of  many  swine  feeding 
{en)  at, by,  or  icitk,  but  not  hi  or  on  the  mountain  and  they  besought  him 
that  he  would  suffer  them  to  enter  {eis)  to  or  near,  but  not  i?Uo  the  swine. 
Then  went  the  devils  {apo)  from,  but  not  out  of  the  man,  and  entered  {eisj 
to  or  -near,  but  not  iiito  the  swine  ;  and  they  (the  herd)  ran  violently  down 
a  steep  place  {eis)  to  or  near,  but  not  into  the  sea,  and  were  choked "(fis)  to 
or  Tiear  the  sea,"'  not  in  it,  but  on  some  sand-bank.  What  can  be  more 
palpably  absurd  than  this  construction. 

Finally,  to  show  you  that  Pedobaptists  generally  take  unwarranted  lib- 
erties in  rendering  these  Greek  particles,  I  would  refer  you  to  Prof. 
Valpy's  Greek  Grammar,  in  which  he  defines  them  at  some  length.  The 
following  examples  will  suffice.  "JSn,"  says  the  Prof.,  "is  used  only 
with  verbs,  or  clauses,  indicative  of  rest,  as  the  Latin  in  with  the  ablative- 
V:Scn  t)  Theo  to  tclos  esti,  the  end  is  in  God. — En  oiko,  at  home,  i.  e.  in 
the  house  j—e/ieaii^o  ^g«/?<?^o,  he  came  to  himself,  i.  e.  he  was  in  himself 
again; — en  Marathon,  i.  e.  in  the  plains  of  Marathon.  Take  also  ezj, 
as  eis  astu  ellhen,  they  came  into  the  city; — ell'icn  eis  ten  Ellada,  he  came 
to  Greece,  i.  e.  he  not  only  came  to  the  borders  but  penetrated  also  into 
the  country  itself: — kumenoscis  Apollona,  a  hymn  to  Apollo,  i.  e.  a  hymn 
not  slightly  touching  npon  but  entering  into  the  praises  of  Apollo. 

In  this  manner  the  learned  Prof  proceeds  till  he  adduces  seventeen  ex 
amples  in  which  en  means  in,  and  fourteen,  in  which  eis  means  into  and 
nearly  every  example  is  commonly  rendered  in  English,  by,  to,  icith,  at. 
etc.,  showing  clearly  that  though  these  particles  are  frequently  rendered 
at,  xL-ith,  to,  near,  still  these  renderings  cannot  obliterate  the  obvious  fact 
that  their  primary  import  is  in  and  into ;  and  they  may  generally  be  re- 
solved into  that,  tliough  ii  may  be  more  agreeab'e  with  our  idiom,  in  some 
instances,  to  employ  other  prepositions.*     But,  my  brother,  you  are  aware 

*  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson  gives  20  definitions  to  our  English  preposition 
frcm,  supported  by  seventy  quotations,  and  46  m.eanings  lo  for  supported 
by  more  than  200  instances  of  actual  usage.  But  the  celebrated  Horn 
Took  explodes  the  Doctor's  metaphysics  and  shows  clearly  that  each  of 
these  prepositions  has  but  one  primary  meaning,  and  that  all  the  fancied 


96 

that  llie  common  rule  of  interpretation  requires  that  the  primary  import 
of  these  particles  should  always  be  taken  when  the  construction  will  per- 
mit. Hence  from  the  plain  obvious  import  of  these  prepositions,  we  de- 
rive a  conclusive  argument  in  favor  of  immersion. 

Pedobaptist.— My  friend,  the  argument  and  illustrations  contained  in 
your  answer,  going  to  show  that  the  primary  import  of  three  of  the  prep- 
ositions out  of  the  four  used  in  connection  with  the  verb,  are  decidedly 
in  your  favor,  and  that  the  primary  import  ot  the  other  does  not  militate 
against  imm.ersion,  have  convinced  me  that  these  prepositions  can  render 
us  no  aid  in  this  controversy.  I  shall  not  therelore  attempt  a  reply. — 
But  as  you  have  heretofore  referred  to  Rom.  G:  4,  ani  Col.  2:  12,  to 
prove  ihat  baptism  is  compared  to  ihe  burial  of  Christ ;  and  therelore  im- 
mersion must  be  the  exclusive  mode,  because  ihat  only  is  emblematical  ol 
a  burial,  I  should  like  to  hear  you  answer  the  Pedobaptist  views  of  this 
subject.  They  assert  that '-the  Scripture  no  where  refers  any  part  of  th 
mode  to  the  burial  of  Christ,  except  something  may  be  gathered  from  these 
jiassagef;.  And  if  it  did,  immersion  cannot  have  any  possible  resem- 
blance to  the  burial  bl  Christ,  for  he  was  not  covered  up  in  the  earth  but 
only  laid  in  a  sepulchre  ;  made  of  a  rock.  That  Christ  was  never  buried, 
is  plain  from  the  evangelist  Matt.  27:  59,  60.  Again,  "  we  read,  Mark 
IG:  1,  that  when  the  sabbath  was  past,  Mary  ^id^s^dioXene  and  others  had 
brought  sweet  spices  that  they  might  come  and  anoint  him  ro  prepare 
liim  tor  his  burial."  Now  they  "affirm  that  (strictly  speaking)  Christ 
was  never  buried  at  all,"  he  was  only  laid  into  a  rock.  "Now  to  this, 
what  kind  of  resemblance  can  immersion  have?    None  at  all."* 

Baptist. — My  brother,  if  Pedobaptists  say  that  Mark  oi  any  of  the  Evan- 
gelists represent  "Mary  Magdalene  and  others  as  bringing  sweet  spices 
to  the  sepulchre  to  anoint  Christ  to  prepare  him  for  his  burial,"  I  know 
not  where  they  find  it.  (Such  persons  shonld  read  the  last  chapter 
in  Revelation.)  Read  John  19  :  39-42.  Mr.  Carson  says  [p.  240]  that 
"  Thapto  applies  to  all  kinds  of  burial.  No  doubt,  originally,  in  all  coun- 
tries burial  was  by  digging  a  pit,  and  covering  the  dead  with  the  mould. 
But  when  repositories  were  built  for  the  dead,  ar  were  scooped  out  of 
rocks,  the  same  word  was  still  used.  This,  in  fact,  is  the  case  with  our 
own  word  ^wry."  "The  idea  that  is  common  to  all  burying,  is  that  oi 
covering  the  dead,  or  surrounding  them  with  something  to  keep  them 
from  violation."  Hence  when  a  thing  is  completely  covered  it  is  said  to 
be  buried.  Hence  the  Shepherd,  when  his  sheep  is  covered  up  with  snow, 
says  that  they  are  buried.  And  when  a  house  falls  on  its  inhabitant.^ 
or  other  objects,  we  say  they  are  buried  in  its  ruins,  or  when  a  vessel  and 
its  crew  sink,  we  say  they  are  buried  in  the  sea  or  ocean  -,  they  found  a 
watery  grave.  In  the  c?r«s/cs,  a  vessel  sinking  or  going  under  water  is 
said  to  be  baptized.  (See  Carson's  treJitise,  pp.  93,  94,  95,  9G.  Stuart, 
pp.  299,  300.  Judd,  pp.  22,  24,  25,  154  to  159.)  You  donbiless  recollect 
that  we  have  before  referred  to  the  fact  that  weapons  were  found  tAvc> 
hundred  years  after  the  battle  oi  Orchovaewn's,  baptized  \i\  the  earth  etc. 
(See  Judd,  p  41.)  Who,  my  friend,  can  read  these  passages  and  discover 
no  analogy  or  resemblance  between  an  im'hiernon  and  a  burial? — But 
Jesus  Christ  was  buried,  as  many  others  \Vere  buried.  (See  the  account 
given  by  Josephus,  of  Herod's  burying  Aristobulus.)     It  appears  by  the 


meanings  of  the  Doctor  are  re.solvable  into  that  one.     In  like  manner  near- 
ly every  one  of  the  IG  meanings  which  Mr.  Parkhurst  the  lexicographer 
assigns  to  en  and  the  18  to  eis  may  be  re:  olved  into  in  and  into. 
*  "  Scripture  Directory  to  Baptism,"  by  a  Layman,  pp.  37,  38. 


97 

account,  that  they  laid  him  in  a  magnificent  sepulchre,  on  a  bier  or  couch 
(Ichne)  built  as  a  house  for  the  dead;  and  this  was  called  a  burial.  Now, 
if  Christ  (strictly  speaking)  was  not  buried,  then  Aristobulus  was  not. 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  representations  of  Scripture,  and  see  whether 
they  harmonize  with  the  representations  of  some  modern  Pedobaptists  on 
this  subjec.  For  it  should  be  remembered,  that  the  testimonies  we  have 
given,  show  conclusively  ihat  for  16  or  17  centuries,  it  was  the  prevailing 
opinion  that  baptism  was  an  emblem,  or  representation  of  the  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection  of  Christ.  (See  Stuart,  pp.  358.  Christian  Revie\y, 
Vol.  3,  pp.  99  to  105.)  "For  as  Jonas  was  three  da3's  and  three  nights  in 
the  whale's  belly  ;  .so  shall  the  Son  of  man  be  three  days  and  three  nights 
in  the  heart  of  earth,  INlatt.  12:  40.  Now,  if  this  representation  I  was 
fulfilled,  it  was  fulfilled  by  his  laying  three  days  in  this  sepulchre,  whicli 
was  the  "  heart  of  the  earthy  It  is  usual  for  a  ridge  of  rocks  to  have  earth 
on  the  top.  "  The  Savior  was  under  the  earth  here,  as  well  as  if  he  had 
been  buried  in  a  pit  at  the  bottom  of  the  valley."  A  Geologist  we  think 
will  not  call  this  statement  in  question.  "Again,  Christ's  being  buried  is 
taught  as  a  part  of  the  gospel,"  Whoever  affirms  then  that  he  was  not 
really  buried  contradicts  and  questions  the  truth  of  the  Gospel.  See  Cor. 
15:  1-4.  The  last  part  which  reads  thus  ;  "  For  I  declared  unto  you  first 
of  all,  that  which  I  also  receired,  how  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  ac- 
cording to  the  Scriptures;  and  that  he  w^as  buried,  and  that  he  rose  again 
the  third  day  according  to  the  Scriptures."  It  is  worthy  of  note  here, 
that  what  the  evangelist  calls  three  days  in  the  heart  of  the  earlh  is  called 
by  the  apostle  being  buried.  Now  it  must  be  admitted  that  there  is  a  like- 
ness bet  weenjihis  burying  and  immersion.  But  no  necessity^exists  that  the 
likeness  should  regard  the  manner,  in  which  the  body  is 'covered  with 
water.  ^  The  emblem  consists  in  the  actual  state  of  the  body  as  being  cov- 
ered with  water.  kSo  the  likeness  to  the  resurrection,  is  to  be  seen,  not  in 
the  manner  the  body  is  taken  out  of  the  water,  but  in  the  rising  itself. 
'^'  There  was  no  likeness  between  the  way  of  killing  a  sacrifice  and  the 
planner  oi  Christ's  death.  There  u'as  no  likeness  between  the  manner 
in  which  Jonah  was  swallowed  by  the  whale,  and  again  thrown  out,  to 
the  way  in  which  Christ  was  carried  into  the  tomb,  and  in  which  he  came 
out  of  the  tomb:  Yet  Jonah  in  the  whale's  belly,  was  an  emblem  of 
Christ  as  being  three  days  in  the  heart  of  the  earth."  The  same  might 
be  said  respecting  the  resemblance  of  a  loaf  of  bread  in  the  Lord's  Supper 
to  Christ's  body.  Now  as  the  body  of  our  Savior  in  the  Sepulchre  was 
encompassed  on  all  sides  and  covered  over  by  it,  so  the  bodies  of  believ- 
ers, in  immersion  in  water  is  encompassed  on  all  sides  and  covered  witii 
this  element.  Cyril,  of  Jerusalem,  A.  D.  374,  says  :  "You,  descending 
into  the  water,  and  being  buried  in  the  water,  as  Christ  in  the  Sepulchre, 
arise  to  newness  of  life.'"'  Basil  the  Great,  A.  D.  360,  says  :  "  How  shall 
\xe  accomplish  a  descent  into  the  grave?  By  baptism  irritating  the  bu- 
rial of  Chri.st."  Who  now  will  contend  that  there  is  no  likeness  in  bap- 
tism to  the  burial  of  Christ? 

Pcdobaptist. — The  objection  which  you  have  so  triumphantly  answered, 
was  advanced  to  elicit  information,  and  not  because  1  deemed  it  a  valid 
or  weighty  one,  though  it  is  regarded  as  such,  by  many  of  my  brethren. 
I  presume  you  are  aware,  that  most  of  the  Pedobaptists  represent  your 
denomination  as  being  so  bigoted  and  sectarian  in  their  views  as  to  con- 
tend for  a  particular  mode  of  baptism,  which  is  the  mere  costume  or  non- 
essential part  of  religion.  This  characteristic  trait  in  your  denomina- 
tion, they  say,  w-as  strikingly  exemplified  in  the  schism  and  division  they 
made  iii  the  American  Bible  Society. 

Baptist.— A.?,  it  respects  modes  of  baptism,  ray  brother,  I  have  said  all  I 


98 

deem  requisite  on  that  point.  I  have  only  to  say  that  we  consider  nothing 
baptism,  short  of  immersion  ;  hence  we  contend  for  the  rite  itself  and  not 
for  the  manner  in  which  it  is  performed.  With  regard  to  the  allegation 
that  we  divided  the  American  Bible  Society,  in  onr  zeal  for  this  external , 
non-essential  rite,  I  vvonld  remark  that  the  Pedobaptists  are  the  last  per- 
sons, I  should  think,  that  would  bring  such  a  charge  as  this  against  us. 
"  Those  who  live  in  glasshouses  should  not  throw  stones"  Now  from 
the  organization  of  the  A.  B.  S.  up  to  the  hour,  "when  it  extinguished  the 
last  ray  of  our  hopes,"  by  passing  the  obnoxious  resolution  that  would 
cause  us  to  violate  our  own  convictions  of  duty  to  God,  and  to  the  millions 
of  perishing  heathen,  or  else  banish  us  entirely  from  its  connection  ;  yes 
up  to  that  hour,  it  received  the  warm  and  hearty  co-operation  of  the  Bap- 
tist denomination.  The  contributions  of  the  Baptists  to  this  society  have 
amounted  to  probably  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  dollars.* 
And  yet  the  Society  has  appropriated  less  than  29,000  dollars  to  aid 
the  translations  made  by  our  missionaries.  It  should  be  known  that  the 
Baptist  translators  have  not  altered  their  course  ;  nor  have  their  versions 
undergone  any  change  as  it  regards  the  translation  of  the  word  baptizo. 
But  the  Pedobaptists  belonging  to  the  Society,  changed  their  course;  and 
altered  the  purport  of  their  constitution,  by  annexing  a  new  resolution  to 
it,  which  produced  the  schism  and  division  in  the  society  you  have  unjustly 
laid  to  the  charge  of  the  Baptists,  notwithstanding  all  their  remonstrances. 
The  main  object  of  this  measure  appears  to  have  been  to  banish  the  Bap- 
tist translations,  not  on  the  ground  that  they  were  unfaithful,  cr  that  the 
heathen  would  be  taught  by  them  what  was  not  the  meaning  of  baptizo, 
but  because  this  word  and  its  cognates  were  faithfully  translated  by  a 
word  equivalent  to  immerse,  which  i'.cn  with  the  learned  world  admit,  is 
the  true  meaning  of  the  term.  Now,  my  friend,  when  we  reason  with 
these  persons  on^the  true,  literal  import  of  the  term  ^  and  ply  them  with 
arguments  they  find  themselves  unable  to  refute,  we  are  met  with  the  re- 
ply, "well  it  will  make  no  difference  as  it  is  an  external,  non-essential 
rite,  and  of  course  not  a  saving  ordinance  ;"t  and  yet  these  same  persons 
make  \\.  so  essential,  Va&lXhcy  hd^Ye  in  effect  declared  by  the  resolution 
they  passed,  and  their  subsequent  conduct,  that  none  of  the  funds  of  the 
American  Bible  Society  (in  which  the  Baptists  at  that  time,  had  just  as 
equitable  a  right  as  themselves,  and  into  whose  treasury  they  had  cast; 
S50,000  for  which  they  never  received  aught,)  should  be  appropriated  to 
circulate  Baptist  translations;  and  consequently  that  the  millions  of  hea- 
then for  whom  these  translation?  were  made,  may,  for  aught  they  will  do, 
perish  in  their  sins  and  pass  on  loan  eternity  of  endless  woe^  for  the  want 
of  that  light  and  knov/ledge,  which  it  is  in  their  power  to  bestow,  bat 
which  they  resolved  and  determined  to  withhold,  solely  on  the  ground 
that  this  little  non-essential  v)ord  baptizo  is  correctly  translated  instead  ot 
being  transferred,  wrapped  up  in  a  dead  language.? 

♦  See  the  2d  annual  report  of  the  American  Foreign  Bible  Society,  p. 
Gl. 

t  Now  it  is  worthy  of  remark  here,  that  the  pleading  the  unimportance 
of  this  truth  by  Pedobaptists,  as  a  justification  of  their  non  compliance 
with  the  requirement  of  Christ,  (indicated  by  the  plain  specific  impoit  of 
the  termbapiizo,)  is  a  virtual  acknowledgment  that  t\ey  are  wrong  and  ice 
are  right. 

t  The  language  of  the  learned  Dr.  Campbell  is  apposUe  to  this  case. 
"Poesihat  deserve  to  be  called  a  version,  which  conveys  neither  the  matter 
nor  the  manner  of  the  authorl  Not  the  matter,  because  an  unintelligible 
word  conveys  no  meaning  ;  not  the  manner,  because  what  the  author  said 


99 

Now  in  the  pertinent  language  of  Dr.  Johnsoo,  (in  hi.s  letter  on  the 
translation  of  the  Scriptures  into  the  Gaelic  language,)  "  If  obedience  to 
the  will  of  God  be  necessary  to  happiness,  and  knowledge  of  his  will  ne- 
cessary to  obedience,  how  can  he  that  withholds  this  knowledge  or  delays 
it  [on  such  a  pretext]  be  said  t J  love  his  neighbor  as  himself?"  My 
brother,  it  appears  to  nie  that  the  Pedobaptists,  who  are  ignorant  of  the 
true  import  otbaptizo,  and  '•  voluntarily  or  wilfully  continue  thus  are 
guijtv  of  all  the  crimes  which  that  ignorance  produces  ;  [be  they  divisions, 
schism?,  controversies,  etc.]  as,  to  him  that  extinguishes  the  tapers  of  a 
light  house,  might  be  justly  imputed  the  calamities  of  shipwrecks." 

Again,  you  are  well  aware  I  presume  that  the  A.  B.  Society  has  aided 
translations  in  which  the  most  important  words  have  been  so  rendered,  or 
mistranslated  as  to  teach  and  sanction  the  greatest  errors.  And  although 
it  refuses  to  aid  in  the  distribution  of  Baptist  translations,  still,  at  the  same 
lime,  it  continues  to  circulate  versions  in  which  the  word  baftizo  is  ren- 
dered precisely  as  in  our  versions  by  a  word  signifyingto  dip  or  i7nriicrsc, 
its  resolution  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  See  Mr.  Maclay"s  ad- 
dress, pp.  12, 13. 

As  it  respects  the  charge  oHigotry  and  sectarianism,  v.-hich  is  so  often 
brought  against  the  Baptists  and  their  missionaries,  because  they  have 
translated  the  word  baptizo  by  a  word  signifying  to  immerse,  in  those  ver- 
.sions  of  the  Bible  which  they  have  given  the  heathen  nations  in  their  own 
tongue.  1  beg  leave  to  introduce,  as  a  complete  refutation  of  this  charge, 
the  language  of  the  late  learned  ana  eminently  gifted  servant  of  the  British 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  Mr.  Greenfield,  who  some  years  since  in  his 
defence  of  the  Serampore  Baptist  translators,  says:  "  Bigotry,  that  is 
blind  zeal  and  prejudice,  the  Baptists  cannot  justly  be  accused  of,  while 
ihey  liRve  [he primitive  sense  o[\he  term,  and  the  rendering  of  so  many 
ancient  andmodern  translations,  as  the  foundation  upon  which  they  have 
grounded  their  version;  nor  can  they  consistently  be  charged  wi'h  secta- 
rianism, while  they  are  lound  in  company  M'ith  the  churches  of  Syria, 
Arabia,  Ethiopia,  Egypt,  Germany,  Holland,  Sweden,  Denmark  and  oth- 
ers, together  wi'h  the'  church  of  England  itself.  If  they  be  bigots  I  know 
not'what  name  the  advocates  of  pouring  or  of  sprinkling,  who  hsLve^wsuch 
basis  to  rest  on,  merit ;  and  if  theirs  be  a  sect,  it  must  be  confessed  to  be  a 
veiy  ancient,  and  very  extensive  one. 

"But  there  is  another  point  of  view,"  he  continues,  (and  while  he  writes 
these  memorable  words,  he  says,  as  a  preface  to  them,  '  I  wish  it  to  be 
distinctly  understood  that  I  am  neither  a  Baptist  nor  the  son  of  a  Baptist,') 
"  in  which  the  opponents  of  the  Serampore  missionaries  should  consider 
the  subject :  and  one  which  involves  the  most  important  consequences. 
Before  they  arraign  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  as  gnili.y  of  a 
gross  and  unpardonable  dereliction  of  duty  in  aiding  the  Serampore 
translators,  and  prefer  a  recommendation  for  them  to  withdraw  ihp.t  aid, 
they  should  be  fully  prepared  to  carry  their  censure,  as  ,well  as  their  rec- 


sinjply  and  familiarly,  the  translator  says  scholastically  and  pedantically. 
And  if  former  translators  have  from  superstition,  from  fear  ol  giving  of- 
lence,  or  from  any  other  motive,  been  induced  to  adopt  so  absurd  a  method, 
shall  wethink  ourselves  obliged  to  imitate  iheml  *  *  Shall  we  make 
lessaccount  of  communicating  clearly  the  truths  revealed  by  the  Spirit, 
than  of  perpetuating  a  phraseology  which  contributes  to  the  advancement 
of  ignorance  and  of  an  implicit  deference  in  spiritual  matters  to  human 
authority^"  Such  would  be  the  effect  of  transferring  the  woidbaptizoSivA 
its  cosnates  in  heathen  languages  instead  of  translating  it. 


100 

ommendalion,  to  a  much  greater  extent.  In  consistency,  if  that  aid  be 
withdrawn  from  the  Seranipore  missionaries  because  they  have  render- 
ed bajAlzo  to  immerse,  then  must  it  also  be  withdrawn  from  the  churches 
of  Syria,  ol  Arabia,  of  Abyssinia,  of  Egypi,  of  Germany,  of  Holland  of 
Denmark,  &c.;  and  the  venerable  Peshito  Syriac  version,  the  Arabic 
versions  of  the  F.rppaganda,  of  Sabat,  &c.;  the  Ethiopic,  the  Coptic  and 
other  versions. must  all  be  suppressed.  If,  however,  they  are  not 'thus 
prepared  to  carry  their  recommendation  to  its  fullest  extent,  then  must 
they  close  their  mouths  forever  against  their  Baptist  brethren.  But  should 
a  faction  so  far  prevail  over  the  good  .sense  of  the  committee,  and  the 
sound  and  catholic  principles  upon  which  the  Society  is  founded,  and 
which  has  ever  been  iis  boast  and  glory,  as  well  as  the  most  powerful 
means  ot  its  extraordinary  success,  then  its  honors  will  be  laid  in  the  dust- 
and  from,  a  splendid  temple  in  the  service  of  which  the  whole  Christian 
world  could  cordially  unite,  it  will  dwindle  into-a  contemptible  edifice 
dedicated  to  party  feelings,  motives,  and  views.  The  broad  basis  upori 
which  it  is  founded  is  its  strength  and  security;  contract  this  within 
narrower  limits  and  it  lalls  into  ruins."  The  remarks  of  Mr.  Greenfield 
are  applicable  to  the  proceedings  of  the  American  Bible  Society. 

Pedobaptist. — My  friend,  if  the  Baptists  have  the  ground  and  argument 
on  this  subject  as  you  seem  to  intimate,  why  are  the  Pedobaptisls  so  much 
blessed  of  God'? 

^a^^isi.— I  answer,  why  has  Popery  with  all  its  glaring  superstitions 
been  permitted  to  extend  itself  over  one  half  of  the  Christian  world'?— 
Why  has  the  Mahommedan  religion  been  allowed  to  spread  its  triumphs 
over  .^ome  of  the  fairest  portions  of  the  globe'?  Vfe  cannot  tell.  "Why 
are  some  churches  holding  error  among  ourselves,  prospered'?  If  you 
are  a  Presbyterian,  I  ask,  why  are  our  Methodist  brethren  favored  of 
God,  while  they  reject  the  important  doctrines  of  election,  and  the  perse- 
A^erance  of  the  Saints'?  If  you  are  a  Methodist  I  inquire,  why  are  Pres- 
byterians distinguished  by  the  favor  of  Heaven,  while  they  embrace  such 
pernicious  errors  as  eleciion  and  the  Saints'  perseverance"?"  Similar  ques- 
tions equally  appropriate  might  be  raised  respecting  the  differences  of  the 
Episcopalian  and  Congregational  modes  of  church  government.  But  it 
is  not  our  province  to. answer  these  questions,  or  to  determine  how  great 
errors  churchej  may  hold  and  yet  be  prospered  of  God,  for  the  sake  of  the 
truth  they  wield  in  his  cause.  Your  denomination,  my  friend,  I  presume 
you  will  find  are  blessed,  and  prospered,  in  proportion  to  their  real  piety 
and  activity  in  disseminating  those  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  which  are  fun- 
damental to  salvation. 

But  the  proper  question  to  be  asked  here  is  net  "why  has  God  prosper- 
ed Pedobaptist  denominations'?"  but  has  he  blessed  them  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  rite  of  infant,  or  even  believer's  sprinkling  to  the  same  ex.- 
lenc  that  he  has  the  Baptist  denomination,  in  the  observance  of  the  rite  of 
primitive  immersion'? 

As  a  conclusive  answer  to  this  question,  I  would  introduce  the  testimo- 
ny of  the  Rev.  L.  Pouter  of  Lowel,  Mass.,  (given  in  the  Christian 
"Watchman,  June  2 1st,  1839.)  in  confirmation  of  ihe  remark  made  by  Prof. 
Jevsett,  in  his  workon  Baptism,  ^'■f  at  God  Itos  freqvently  blessed  this  ordi- 
nance [beUevei's  hapiiHrp]  to  ti.e  conversion  of  so%ls?'  "This  idea,"  says 
he,  "adiTiits  of  abundant  proof.  Hundreds  of  Christians  can  testify,  that 
their  first  permanent,  serious  impressions  were  obtained  at  the  river's  side. 
It  was  when  witnessing  the  baptism  of  an  only  sister,  by  the  late  beloved 
Prof.  Knowlk.s,  then  pastor  of  the  Second  Baptist  Church  in  Boston,  that 
my  own  attention  was  attracted  to  the  subject  of  religion. 


101 

"  It  has  been  m}-.  happiness  to  baptize  almost  every  month  for  the  past 
four  years,  and  I  do  not  know  ot  one  instance  in  which  the  ordinance  has 
not  been  blessed  to  the  conviction  an-i  conversion  of  one  or  more  individ- 
uals. No  doubt  each  time  persons  have  been  seriously  affected,  and  per- 
haps converted  to  God,  whose  names  I  shall  not  know  until  the  judg- 
ment da/. 

"  I  have  made  extensive  inquiries  among  intelligent  Ped3baptist  min- 
isters and  members,  of  various  denominations, ^vhether  they  ever  knew 
a  person  convened  to  God,  or  even  deeply  convicted  of  sin,  by  witness- 
ing the  sprinkling  of  a  child.,  or  an  adult,  and  have  not  yet  learned  that 
such  a  case  ever  occui  red.  Allow  me  to  ask,  through  ihe  Watchman, 
whether  any  individual,  pastor,  deacon  or  member,  can  cite  any  well  au- 
thenticated instance'?  [No  answer  has  ever  been  given  to  this  question.] 
Cluery,  which  is  God's  ordinance,  the  one  he  blesses  by  his  Spirit,  or  the 
one  he  does  not'? 

"  I  have  baptized,  during  the  past  four  years,  upon  an  average,  one 
Pedobaptist  individual  each  month,  more  than  half  being  members  of 
churches.  Last  Sabbath  I  baptized  a  married  lady,  who  has  been  for 
several  years  connected  with  a  Congregational  church  in  this  city.  Also 
at  the  same  time  a  Congregational  clergyman,.  Rev.  Tobias  P'inkham, 
for  the  last  three  years  pastor  of  a  Congregational  church  in  Dracut. — 
Mr.  Pinkham's  attention  to  this  subject  was  awakened  by  learning  that 
Prof  Jewett,  who  was  with  him  at  Andover,  had  changed  his  senti- 
ments. Thus  the  '  Presbyterian  Elder,'  who  became  a  Baptist  at  Mariet- 
ta, has  been  blessed  to  the  conversion  of  two  Pedobaptist  ministers  already. 
Gluery,  Suppose  the  Elder  had  become  a  Baptist  in  sentiment,  but  had 
not  gone  forward  in  baptism,  would  brethren  Jewett  and  Pinkham  have 
been  baptized  at  this  time'?  Cluery.  How  much  sin  would  tli2  Elder 
been  guilty  of  if  he  had  not  been  ba'piized  at  the  X\me  he  was'?  * 

"Judson  became  a  Baptist  by  studying  the  Bible  upon  that  point  to  meet 
the  Baptists  in  India.  So  did'Rice.  Merrill  became  a  Baptist  by  search- 
ing the  Bible  for  arguments  against  them,  so  did  Chapin  and  Grosvenor, 
and  Hackett,  and  Loomis,  and  Nott,  and  Jewett,  and  Pinkham,  and  jnanij 
others.  What  wiUbe  the  result  of  other  candid,  and  pious,  and  intelligent 
Pedobapiists,  who  undertake  to  preach  against  the  sentiments  of  the  Bap- 
tists'?" 

Nor  is  it  by  any  means  true  as  the  objection  seems  to- assume,  that  the 
Baptists  have  not  been  visited  by  the  smiles  of  the  King  of  Zion.  With- 
out creed  or  catechism,  without  General  Assemblies,  or  other  high  judi- 
catories of  the  church,  without  archbishops  or  bishops,  they  have  walked 
together  harmoniously,  uniting  with  each  other  in  efforts  to  extend  Christ's 
Kingdom  till  they  embrace  in  their  congregations  a  larger  body  of  per- 
sons, if  not  a  larger  num.ber  of  believers  than  any  other  denomination  in 
tlie  United  States.  The  Baptists  were  the  piorieers  in  the  modern  mis- 
sionary enterprise.  They  were  the  originators  of  the  Monthly  Concert 
of  Prayer,  and  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  the  parent  of  the 
American  Bible  Society.  They  have  also  taken  the  lead  in  the  tiansla- 
tioDS  of  the  Bible.     "  Within  the  last  forty  years  their  missionaries  have 

'^  Who  that  feels  it  his  duty  to  follow  the  example  and  command  of 
his  Savior  in  this  expressive  ordinance  knows  how  many  are  kept  back 
from  the  performance  of  this  duty  by  his  example,  and  again  how  many 
might  be  convicted  of  their  sins  and  converted  to  God  by  his  consci-. 
encious  obedience  to  the  truth.  God  never  commands  a  man  to  do  any- 
thing which  it  is  either  wise  or  prudent  for  him  to  neglect  or  disobey. 


102 

ticn.slr.ied  ihe  Bible  into  between  forty  ::nd  fifty  different  languages." — 
indeed  all  the  versions  they  have  made,  embrac'ethe  languages  ar-d  dia- 
lecis  spoken  by  more  than  halfoi  the  heathen  H'orld.  To  ihem  in  a  spe- 
cial manner  are  we  indebled  lor  the  civil  and  religious  liberty  we  now 
enjoy. 

Pedobnptisi. — My  brother,  how  do  j-ou    substantiate  the  assertion  that 
ue  are  "indf-hted  to  the  Bapiista  for  our  civil  and  religious  liberty?" 

Baplist. — They  were  the  people  that  first  advocated  tliese  sentiments. 
]tis  to  Roger  Williams,  the  founder  of  Rhode  Island  and  the  first  Baptist 
church  in  America,  that  we  turn  for  the  lirst  dawnings  ofthat  Sun  of  civil 
tnd  religious  freedom  which  has  arisen  upon  our  Republic,  in  the  efful- 
gence of  his  glory.  Mr.  Bancioftthe  historian  says:  "He  was  the  first 
])ersou  in  modern  Chrislcudom  to  assert  in  its  plenitude,  the  doctrine  of  the 
liberiy  of  conscience,  the  equality  of  opinions  belbre  the  law;  and  in  i;s 
defence,  he  v.-as  the  harbinger  of'  Milton,  the  precursor  and  superior  of 
Jeremy  Taylor.  For  Taylor  limited  his  toleration,  to  a  few  Christian  sects; 
the  philanthropy  of  Williams  compassed  the  earth."— Nourished  by  sen- 
timents like  these,  sentiments  emblazoned  on  the  pages  of  inspiration  and 
imbibed  Irom  the  sacred  volume,  he  disdained  alike  the  despotic  laws  of 
church  and  state,  and  the  frown  of  the  ecclesiastical  deiumciatien  of  his 
Pedobaptist  brethren — he  left  the  soil  where  religious  liberty  was  not  per- 
mitted to  dwell,  and  sought  ahome  witli  tlie  savage  and  infidel,  which  hi.J 
own  brethren,  Avho  had  fled  from  the  sword  of  persecution  in  England,  re- 
fused him.  It  was  in  these  trying  circumstances  that  he  broke  away  from 
the  shackles  of  religi(nis  thraldom,  and  opened  up  an  asylum  in  the  wilder- 
ness, (which  he  '.hen  called  Providence.^  for  the  persecuted  of  every  de- 
nomination. Here,  he  and  his  associates,  in  1630,  established  a  code  of 
laws '•  in  which,"  says  Judge  Story,  "  Vv-e  read  for  the  first  lime,  since 
Claislianity  ascended  the  throne  of  the  Cresar.s,  the  declaration  that _'cpn- 
science  should  be  free,  and  men  should  not  be  punished  for  worshiping 
God,  in  the  way  they  v.'cre  persuaded  he  required.'  And  from  this  dec- 
laration of  principles  Rhode  Island  has  never  departed.  These  peculiar 
sentiments  of  religious  liberty,  which  have  since  been  adopted  by  every 
state  in  the  Union,lhe  Baptists  were  the  first  to  proclaim,  exemplify,  and 
defend.  Hence,  as  we  should  naturally  suppose,  they  choose  their 
own  religious  teachers,  whom  they  regard  as  their  "servants  for  good"  ac- 
knowledging no  foreign  jurisdiction,  and  no  man  their  master  but  Christ. 
These  distinguished  sentimenis  and  principles  in  the  religious^  system  ot 
the  Baptists,  have  given  birth  and  vigor  to  the  Republican  habits,  institu- 
tions, and  government  of  our  country.* 

Pcdobaplist;— But,  my  friend,  after  all  you  have  said  about  religious 
liberty,  etc.,  is  not  the  question  about  baptism  of  trifling  importancel 

Baptist. — But  is  it  a  question  of  trifling  impoitancc,  whether  men  shall 
lay  unhallowed  hands  on  an  ordinance  of  the  great  Head  of  the  Church 
arid  profanely  strip  it  of  its  significance  and  its'  teachings — whether  they 
shall  strike  down,  in  the  temple  ol  gospel  truth,  ihenoble  pillar  of  justifying 
faidi  —whether  they  shall  lift  from    the  sinner's  conscience,  a  weight  of 

*  Some  years  previous  to  the  American  Revolution,  there  was  a  Baptist 
church  near  the  house  of  Mr.  Jefferson  in  Virginia,  whose  monthly  meet- 
ings he  often  attended.  Being  asked  how  he  was  pleased  with  their 
church  government,  i.e  replied  that  "  it  had  struck  him  with  great  force, 
and  interested  him  very  much  ;  that  he  considered  it  the  only  form  of  pure 
democracy  that  then  existed  in  the  world,  j  nd  had  concluded  that  it  would 
be  the  bestplan  of  government  for  the  American  colonies." 


103 

personal  rer-ponsibility,  laid  there  by  the  Lord  Jesus  himself— whet  he  f 
they  shall  abrogate  a  law  of  the  King'  o(  Saints;— or  whether  they  shall 
keep  the  ordinances,  as  they  have  been  delivered  in  the  Statute  Book  of 
Heaven,  revering  the  will  of  the  Sovereign,  and  observing  all  things 
whatsoever  he  hath  commanded'?  ' 

Infant  baptism,  in  direct  opposition  to  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture, 
v.hich  teaches  us  that  every  one  must  believe,  be  baptized  and  give  an 
account  of  himself  nn[o,God,  declares  ihatihe  act  of  theparentin  theobserv- 
ance  of  this  rite,  liquidates  all  obligations  of  the  child,  even  if  he  become 
a  believer,  to  obey  the  command  of  Christ  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism— 
that  the  parent's  faith  shall  save  the  child!  A  celebrated  Pedobaptist 
minister  in  Boston  says  that  a  Christian  parent  who  uses  the  ordinance  of 
infant  baptism  aright,"  "may  be  sure,  that  the  great  Shepherd  and  Bishop 
of  souls  has  written  the  name  of  that  child  before  him,  in  letters  which  his 
infinite  forbearance  and  mercy  Avill  long  keep  from  being  blotted  out, 
though  the  child  perversely  break  his  father's  covenant."  "  If  the  parents 
die  while  the  child  is  young,  the  remembrance  of  its  dedication  to  God, 
and  the  contident  belief  that  it  was  received  into  his  covenant,  will  help 
them  to  look  at  it  Irom  the  dying  pillow   with  peace."* 

In  the  language  of  Prof  JeweU:  "Is  not  infant  baptism  as  exhibited  in 
■hese  extracts  manifestly  at  war  with  the  great  doctrine  of  justification 
BY  faith'?  This  teaches,  that /c/iY'j,  one's  c?//?^  faith,  not  another's, — faith, 
not  v:orks,  either  his  own  or  another's  shall  save  a  man.  Shall  the  Bap- 
tists oe  charged  with  bigotry,  for  endeavoring  to  uphold  a  doctrine  on 
which  the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  has  so  strenuously  insisted,  as 
lundamental  to  the  Christian  system." 

"I  need  say  nothing  of  the  fatal  influence  of  the  views  I  am  examin- 
ing on  multitudes  of  careless  adults,  who  are  encouraged  in  a  life  of 
impenitence,  by  complacently  dwelling  on  the  covenant  made  with  God 
on  their  behalf,  when  their  parents  presented  them  for  baptism.  From 
their  infancy,  they  have  been  accustomed  to  reflect,  that  they  have  re- 
ceived '  the  seal  of  the  covenant,' have  been  'made  members  of  Christ,' 
and  'children  of  God,'  having  been  regenerated  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  Is 
it  strange,  that  such  persons  should  feel  themselves  safe,  and  at  liberty 
to  continue  in  sin." 

Pedobaptist.— My  friend,  Pedobaplists  say  that  it  is  very  evident,  that 
"  Baptists  attach  too  much  importance  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.'' 

Baptist. — "I  might  reply  that  on  some  occasions  Pedobaptists  attach 
too  little  importance  to  it.  When  individuals  are  led  to  inquire  respect- 
ing the  mind  of  Christ,  do  not  even  ministers  endeavor  to  quiei  their  un- 
easiness, by  telling  them,  'the  subject  ir  of  no  consequence'— 'it  is  a  mere 
external  ceremony^'— 'it  is  not  worth  while  to  trouble  one's  self  about  it.' 
When  young  converts  are  seeking  to  know  the  will  of  their  Lord,  respect- 
ing the  ordinances  of  his  church," do  not  their  spiritual  guides  often  ply 
them  with  'dissua.sives'  from  investigation'?  Do  not  parents  endeavor  to 
restrain  their  children  from  examination, because  it  is  pleasant  to  have  all 
the  children  in  the  same  church  with  the  parents'?  Are  there  not  num- 
bers who  will  not  listen  to  a  sermon  on  the  subjecf?  And  do  not  even 
t'leological  students,  while  pursuing  their  studies,  content  themselves  with 
a  partial  view  of  the  matter,  forming  their  conclusions  without  reading 
a  single  Bapiist  author'?"  Do  not  many  other  Pedobaptists,  whose 
minds  have  been  troubled,  by  reading  the  plain  declarations  of  Scripture 
on  this  subject,  endeavor  to  remove  their  scruples  by  turning  away  from 

*  "  Tkc  Baptized  Child,"  by  Nehemiah  A.dams,  Boston,  pp.  36,  58, 


104 

\\\e  Bible,  and  every  thing  that  treats  ot  this  matter ;  or  else  attempt  to 
quiet  their  consciences,  by  persuading  themselves  that  it  is  a  mere  nones- 
cSoi/mZ  /-.Yi?,  and  that  their  influence  or  usefulness  would  be  abridged,  if 
ihcy  were  to  become  Baptists'?  Are  not  others  prevented  from  the  Scrip- 
tural observance  of  this  rite  by  being  told  that  immersion  is  ^^indecenl," 
or  at  least  "unsuUed  to  the  manners  of  a  polished  ageT'  Have  not  even 
some  Pedobapiist  ministers  in  this  manner,  endeavored  to  hold,  up  the 
primitive  rite  of  immersion  enjoined  by  our  Savior  and  confesse  ily  prac- 
tised by  ih.e  church  for  centuries  in  an  odious  light'?  Does  it  not  "appear 
from  these  facts,  my  friend,  that  many  Pedobapiisis  attach  too  liltle  im- 
portance to  this  Gospel  ordinance"? 

Pcdobu'piiit. — My  brother,  il'you  think  iliat  Pedobaptists  attach  too  liillc 
importaice  to  this  rite,  1  conclude  it  must  be,  because  you  lay  an  un- 
warrantable stress  upon  it.  I  suppose  the  Baptists  believe  it  to  be  a  sa- 
ving ordinance. 

jBtf^/.'si.— By  nomeans;  so  far  are  v/e  from  regarding  it  as  such,  that 
vve  believe  that  all  the  waters  of  Jordan  or  Lake  Erie,  cannot  wash  away 
sin — that  a  person  must  profess  faith  in  Christ  and  give  satisfactory  evi- 
dence that  he  has  heemcasl^ed  and  cleansed  from  sin  by  tlu  atoiijig  blood  of 
C/.mi  before  we  can  consider  him  in  the  light  of  Scripture,  an  eligible 
subject  for  this  rile.  This  in  fact  constitutes  one  of  the  most  distinguish- 
ing traits  in  our  denominational  character.  But,  though  we  do  not  regard 
ihisordinance  essential  t.i  salvation,  yet  we  believe  that  the  scriptural  ob- 
servance of  it,  is  essential  to  obedience.  We  believe  the  rite,  though  an 
external  one,  is  full  of  rich  instruction  to  the  believer,  if  it  be  observed 
m  the  manner  enjoined  by  Christ.  "And as  every  rite  must  have  a  form, 
if  we  do  not  preserve  the  form  we  do  not  practise  the  rite.  Hence,  im- 
inersion  is  essential  to  baptism.  Hence,  baptism  (immersion)  is  essen- 
tial toobedicnce  to  Christ; — essential  to  the  highest  instruotion  and  com- 
fort oi  believers; — essential  to  the  best  moral  impression  on  unbelievers; 
—essential  to  the  purity  and  stability  of  the  church  of  Cnrist." 

But,  my  friend,  as  we  are  repeatedly  charged  with  laying  an  undue 
stress  on  baptism,  we  would  state  as  "our  clear  conviction  that  if  the 
truth  were  known,  it  would  be  seen  that  it  is  the  Pedobaptists  themselves, 
who  lay  unauthorized  stress  upon  this  ordinance.  It  is  well  known  that 
2}onrii}g,  sprinliing,  and  infant  baptism,  all  had  their  ori/^in,  (and  even 
existence  for  centuries)  in  "the  belief,  that  baptism  regenerated  the  soul, 
and  qualified  the  subject  for  admission  into  heaven.  Believing  that  all 
who  died  unbaptized  were  irrevocably  lost,  for  those  on  sick  beds  who  were 
considered  in  imminent  danger,  and  immersion  consequently  deemed  im- 
practicable, they  lirst  invented  pouring  as  a  substitute  for  baptism  and  af- 
terwards sprinkling.  The  statements  of  Prof.  Stuart  and  Bp.  Smith  of 
Kentucky,  corroborate  this  historical  fact.  Hence  we  perceivethe  impor- 
tance Pedobaptists  formerly  attached  to  this  ordinance.  Let  us  now  see 
what  im]jortance  is  attached  to  it  by  modern  Pedobaptists. 

Mr.  Bapn-ks,  a  Presbyterian,  in  hisNoic  on  Mark,  10  :  IG.  "  It  is  wor- 
thyof  remaik,  that  Jesus  has  made  baptism  of  so  much  importance.  He 
A\(\noi  say,  indeed,  that  a  man  could  not  be  saved  without  baptism,  but 
he  has  strjngly  implied,  that  where  this  is  neglected,  knowing  it  to  be  a. 
command  of  the  Snv'e/r,h  endangers  the  salvation  of  the  soul.  Failhand 
baptism  are  the  beginnings  ot  the  Christian  life:  the  one,  the  beginning 
of  piety  i7i  the  soul ;  the  oiher,  of  its  manifestation  before  men,  or  of  a  pro- 
iession  of  religion.*  And  no  man  can  tell  how  much  he  endangers  his 
eternal  interest  by  being  ashamed  of  Christ  before  men. 

*ls  the  baptism  of  an  infant  the  manifestation  bel'orc  men,  of  piety  iu 
its  soul? 


105 

Matthew  Henrt,  a  Congregationalist  and  the  distinguished  commen- 
tator. "  The'gospel  contaim;  not  only  a  doctrine,  but  a  covenant;  and  by 
baptism  we  are  brought  in'o  that  covenant.  Baptism  -u'rests  the  keys  ot 
the  heart  out  of  the  hands  of  the  strong  man  armed,  that  the  possession 
maybe  surrendered  to  Him  whose  right  it  is,  *  *  *  This  then  is  the  ef- 
ficacy of  baptism;  it  is  putting  the  child's  name  into  the  gospel  grant. — 
We  are  baptized  into  Christ's  death,  i.  e.  God  doth  in  that'ordinance, 
seal,  confirm,  and  make  over  to  us,  all  the  benefits  of  the  death  of  Christ 
— Infant  baptism  speaks  an  hereditary  relation  to  God  that  comes  to  us 
by  descent." — T-caiise  on  Baptism. 

Dn.  Waterland,  an  Episcopalian  and  celebrated  scholar  and  divine  : 
"  Baptism  alone  is  sufficient  to  make  one  a  Christian,  yea,  and  to  keep 
him  such  even  to  his  life's  end  ;  since  it  imprints  an  indelible  character 
in  such  a  sense  as  never  to  need  repeating.'' 

Do  Presbyterians  charge  us  with  placing  an  undue  stress  upon  this 
ordinance?     And  what  stress  do  they  lay  upon  if? 

In  their  '■' Confession  of  Faith"  they  say  :  "  Baptism  is  a  sacrament  of 
the  New  Testament,  ordained  by  Jesus  Christ,  not  only  as  a  solemn  ad- 
mission of  the  party  baptized  into  the  visible  church,  but  aho,  to  be  uyUo 
him  a  SIGN  and  a  SEAL,  flf  the  covenant  of  Grace,  cf  his  ingrafting  inio 
Christ,  o{  regeneration,  oi  rcymssim  of  si7is." 

Is  this  objection  brought  against  us  by  Congregalionalists'?  And  what 
stress  do  they  place  upon  baptism? 

Hear  the  learned  Dr.  Dw'ight.  "  When  children  die  in  infancy,  there 
is  much  and  very  consoling  reason  to  believe  that  they  are  accepted  be- 
yond the  grave."  He  further  adds,  "There  is,  I  think,  reason  to  hope 
well  concerning  other  children  dying  in  infanc}  ;  but  there  is  certainly 
■peculiar  reason  for  Christian  parents  to  entertain  strong  consolation  with 
regard  to  their  offspring."  My  brother,  it  is  evident  from  the  language 
of  Dr.  Dwight  that  he  supposed  baptism  to  coniribate  very  much  to  the 
salvation  of  infants. — The  language  of  Matthew  Henry  which  I  have  al- 
readv  given  is  still  more  remarkable.  See  also  "  The  Baptized  Child," 
pp.  36,  58.  33, 

Do  Methodists  urge  this  objection'?  And  hov/  essential  or  important 
do  they  deem  this  ordinance? 

The  celebrated  John  Wesley,  the  founder  of  Methodism,  says  :  "  Bij 
Baptism,  vre  Vvho  were  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  f.re  made  the  chil- 
dren of  God,  And  this  regeneration,  which  our  church  in  so  many  pla- 
ces ascribes  to  baptism,  is  more  than  barely  being  admitted  into  the 
church,  though  commonly  connected  therewith.  *  *  *  Being  grafted  in- 
to the  body  of  Chrii-t's  church,  we  arc  made  the  children  of  God,  by 
adoption  and  grace.  John  3  :  5.  By  v.'ater  then,  as  the  means  the  v»'ater 
of  baptism,  we  are  regenerated,  or  born  again:  whence  it  is  called 
by  the  apostle,  the  '  washing  of  regeneration  '—In  all  ages  the  outu'ard 
baptism  is  a  means  of  the  inward.— Herein  we  receive  a  title  to,  and  an 
earnest  of,  a  kingdom  which  cannot  be  moved.  In  the  ordinary  way 
there  is  no  other  means  of  entering  into  the  church  or  into  heaven. — If 
infants  are  guilty  of  original  sin,  then  they  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism, 
seeing,  in  the  ordinary  way  thev  cannot  be  saved  unless  this  be  washed 
away  by  baptism."— Wesley*s  Works,  vol.6,  pp.  15,  l6.  N.  Y.  1832. 

Do  Episcopalians  present  this  objection?  And  what  stress  do  they  lay 
upon  this  rue? 

In  their  Catechism  occur  the  following  question  and  answer  :  "  How 
many  sacraments  hath  Christ  ordained  in  his  church?  Aiisicer.  Two 
on\y,  as  generaWy  necessary  to  salvation — that  is  to  say.  Baptism  and  the 
Supper  of  the  Lord."     After  an  infant  is  baptized  the  minister  is  required 


106 

to  say,  "Seeing  now,  dearly  beloved  brethren,  that  this  child  is  regene^ct- 
ted,  and  grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's  church,  let  us  give  thanks  unto 
Almighty  God  for  these  benefits."  And  then  the  prayer  of  Thanks- 
giving is  ofi'ered  thus.  '■  We  yield  thee  hearty  thanks,  most  merciful  Fa- 
ther, that  it  hath  pleased  thee  to  regenerate  this  infant  with  the  Holy  Spir- 
it, to  receive  him  for  thine  own  child  by  adoption,  and  to  incorporate 
him  into  thy  holy  church."  The  child  thus  baptized  is  required  to  learn 
his  catechism  before  confirmation.  In  that  catechism,  my  brother,  may 
be  found  this  question  and  answer,  which  show  liat  the  child  was  taught 
to  view  baptism  in  the  same  light. 

Question.  "  Who  gave  you  this  namel  Ansv:er.  My  sponsor  in  bap- 
tism wherein  1  was  made  a  member  of  Christ,  ike  chi'd  of  God,  and  an  in- 
heritor of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.'"' 

Should  this  objection  come  from  Roman  Catholics,  (the  originators  of 
infant  baptism  and  sprinkling,)  let  us  see  what  stress  is  laid  upon  this 
institution  by  them. 

Take  the  Canons  and  Catechism  oi  the  Council  of  Trent:  "  If  any  one 
shall  say  that  baptism  is  not  necessary  to  salvation,  let  him  be  accursed. 
Sin,  whether  contracted  by  birth,  from  our  first  parents,  or  committed  by 
ourselves,  is,  by  the  admiral  virtue  of  this  sacrament  remifed  and  par- 
doned.--In  baptism,  not  only  sins  are  remitted,  but  all  the  punishments 
of  sins  and  wickedness  are  graciously  pardoned  of  GoJ.  *  *  *  By  bap- 
tism we  are  joined  and  knit  to  Christ,  as  members  to  the  head.  By  bap- 
tism we  are  signed  with  a  character,  which  can  never  be  blotted  out  of 
our  soul.  Besides  the  other  things  which  we  obtain  by  baptism  it  opens 
to  every  one  of  us  the  gate  of  Heaven,  which  before,  through  sin,  was 
shut."  * 

1  trust,  my  brother,  after  these  quotations  from  confessions  of  faith  and 
standard  authors  ot  dilferent  denominations,  that  you  will  not  again 
charge  us  with  placing  too  much  stress  upon  this  ordinance.  Whatever 
meaning  these  extractl^  may  have  been  designed  to  convey,  I  certainly 
have  never  met  with  expressions  so  extravagant  in  any  Baptist  author. 

Pcdobaptist.— My  brothef,  I  was  not  aware  before,  that  any  standard 
Pedobaptist  author  attached  so  much  importance  to  this  rile,  as  these  ex- 
tracts evidently  import.  There  is  another  objection  that  Pedobaptists 
very  frequently  urge  against  your  denomination.  The  Baptist  denomi- 
nation is  a  modern  sect.  It  is  but  about  two  hundred  years  since  their 
ori'^'in,  or  that  any  one  ever  heard  of  such  a  sect.  With  what  show  of 
reason  then  can  they  claim  to  hold  the  doctrines  of  the  primitive  churches'? 

Baptist.— My  friend,  if  it  could  be  proved  that  our  denomination  has 
not  existed  100  years  that  would  not  convict  us  of  error,  or  prove  that 

*  Baptism  is  deemed  so  indispensable  by  Roman  Catholics  that  even 
laymen,  physicians,  females,  etc.,  are  authorized  to  administer  the  rite  in 
extraordinary  cases.  In  the  latter  part  of  the  17th  century,  Father  Jerome 
Florenlini  of  Lucca  published  the  4th  edition  of  a  quarto  to  explain,  con- 
firm, and  direct  the  baptism  of  infants  unborn.  No  less  than  forty  im- 
priraatures  and  recommendations  from  divines,  bishops,  physicians,  uni- 
versities, etc.,  accompanied  this  book.  See  Rob.  Hist,  of  Bap.,  Lond.  Ed., 
1790,  p.  432.  In  the  year  1751,  F.  E.  Congiamil;e,  Doctor  of  Divinity  and 
Laws,  of  Palermo,  published  in  the  Italian  language  a  quarto  book  of  320 
pages  "dedicated  to  all  the  guardian  angels  to  direct  priests  and  physi- 
cians how  to  secure  the  eternal  salvation  of  infants,  by  baptizing  thena 
when  they  could  not  be  born."  We  thus  see  how  far  the  superstition  of 
infant  baptism  has  carried  people. 


95 

The  Intide],  that  Noah  and  his  family,  etc.;  only  entered  (eis)  to  or  near 
the  ark,  but  not  into  it— that  the  Israelites  and  the  Egyptians  only  entered 
(eis)  to  or  near  the  Eed  Sea  but  not  into  it,  etc. — that  Jonah  was  only 
thrown  (eis)  to  or  near  the  Sea,  but  notinto  it — that  Daniel  was  only  cast 
{eis)  to  or  near  the  lion's  den  but  not  into  it,  &c.  &c. 

Again,  as  the  translators  of  the  New  Testament  into  our  langnao-e 
were  Pedobaptists,  they  would  not  be  likely  to  translate  these  prepositio^ns 
in  such  a  manner,  as  to  have  them  speak  decidedly  against  their  own 
practice,  unless  compelled  to  do  so  by  conscience  and  the  plain  obvious 
import  of  the  original.  When,  therefore,  these  tran^ilators  inform  us  that 
John  baptized  in  the  river  Jordan— that  they  came{epi)  to  the  water,  and 
went  dov^^n  {eis)  into  the  water,  and  after  baptism,  came  up  (ck)  out  of  the 
water,  etc.,  we  conclude  that  the  original  was  so  plain,  that  they  felt  com- 
pelled to  translate  it  thus. 

But,  my  friend,  as  a  further  illustration  of  the  incongruity  of  renderino- 
these  prepositions  by  the  definitions  you  assign  to  them,  let  us  read  the 
following  narrative,  Luke  8:  29,  30—34.  Mark  5:  13.  '=For  he  had 
commanded  the  unclean  Spirit  to  come  (apo)  from,  but  not  out  of  the 
man."  "  He  was  driven  of  the  devils  (eis) /o  or  near,  but  not  into  the 
wilderness.  *  *  *  many  devils  v^eve  entered  (eis)  to  ot  7iear,  but  notinto 
him."  But  what  did  they  ent^r  and  come  from  or  out  of  if  not  the  man] 
"  And  they  besought  him  that  he  would  not  command  them  to  go  out  (eis) 
to  or  near  the  deep.  And  there  was  there  a  herd  of  many  svrine  feeding 
(en)  at, by,  or  witk,  but  not  in  or  on  the  mountain  and  they  besought  him 
that  he  would  suffer  them  to  enter  (eis)  t-oov  near,  but  not  into  the  swine. 
Then  went  the  devils  (apo)  from,  but  not  out  of  the  man,  and  entered  (eis) 
10  or  near,  but  not  into  the  swine ;  and  they  (the  herd)  ran  violently  down 
a  steep  place  (eis)  to  or  near,  but  not  into  the  sea,  and  were  choked  (eis)  to 
ov  near  the  sea,"  not  f ;i  it,  but<5/i  seme  sand-bank.  What  can  be  more 
palpably  absurd  than  this  construction. 

Finally,  to  show  you  that  Pedobaptists  generally  take  unwarranted  lib- 
erties in  rendering  these  Greek  particles,  I  would  refer  you  to  Prof, 
Valpy's  Greek  Grammar^  in  which  he  defines  them  at  some  length.  The 
following  examples  will  suflice.  "En,"  says  the  Prof,  "is  used  only 
v%-ith  verbs,  or  clauses,  indicative  of  rest,  as  the  Latin  i7i  with  the  ablative; 
PS  en  to  Theo  to  teles  esti,  the  end  is  in  God. — En  oiko,  at  home,  i.  e.  hi 
the  house  ;—c?ie«M/o  goe?j<;/o,  he  came  to  himself,  i.  e.  he  was  in  himself 
Sigain  ;—eii  3'laraihon,  i.  e.  in  the  plains  of  Marathon.  Take  a]so  eis^ 
as  eis  astu  elthen,  they  came  into  the  city ; — eU'ien  eis  ten  Ellada,  he  came 
to  Greece,  i.  e.  he  not  only  came  to  the  borders  but  penetrated  also  into 
the  country  i'self: — Immenoscis  Apollona,  a  hymn  to  Apollo,  i.  e.  a  hymn 
not  slightly  touching  upon  but  entering  into  the  praises  of  Apollo. 

In  this  manner  the  learned  Prof  proceeds  till  he  adduces  seventeen  ex 
amples  in  which  en  means  in,  and  fourteen,  in  which  eis  means  into  and 
nearly  ever^^  example  is  commonly  rendered  '"n  English,  by,  to,  zvith,  at, 
etc..  showing  clearly  that  though  these  particles  are  frequently  rendered 
at,  v:ith,  to,  near,  still  these  renderings  cannot  obliterate  the  obvious  fact 
that  their  primary  import  is  in  and  into ;  and  they  may  generally  be  re- 
solved into  that,  though  it  may  be  more  agreeab'e  with  our  idiom,  in  some 
instances,  to  employ  other  prepositions,*     But,  my  brother,  you  are  aware 

*  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson  giv^es  20  definitions  to  our  English  preposition 
frcrn,  supported  by  seventy  quotations,  and  40  meanings  to  f^or  supported 
by  more  than  200  instances  of  actual  usage.  But  the  celebrated  Horn 
Took  explodes  the  Doctor's  metaphysics  and  shows  clearly  that  each  of 
these  prepositions  has  but  one  primary  meaning,  and  that  all  the  fancieu 


96 

jKat  ilie  common  rule  of  interpretation  requires  that  the  primary  import 
of  these  particles  should  always  be  taken  when  the  consiruction  will  per- 
mit. Hence  from  the  plain  obvious  import  of  these  prepositions,  we  de- 
rive a  conclusive  argument  in  favor  of  immersion. 

Pedobapli&t. — iVly  friend,  the  argument  and  illustrations  contained  in 
your  answer,  going  to  show  that  the  primary  import  of  three  of  the  prep- 
ositions out  of  the  four  used  in  connection  with  ihe  verb,  are  decidedly 
in  your  favor,  and  that  the  primary  import  of  the  other  does  not  militate 
against  imm.ersion,  have  convinced  me  that  tliese  prepositions  can  render 
nsno  aid  in  this  controversy.  I  shall  not  therelore  attempt  a  reply. — 
Butasyou  have  heretofore  referred  to  Rom.  G:  4,  aniCol.  2:  1-3,  to 
prove  ihat  baptism  is  compared  to  the  burial  of  Christ  •,  and  therelore  ina- 
mersion  must  be  the  exclusive  mode,  because  that  only  is  emblematical  of 
a  burial,  I  should  like  to  hear  you  answer  the  Pedobaptist  views  of  this 
^~ubject.  .  They  assert  that  "the  Scripture  no  vilcrc  relers  any  part  of  the. 
mode  to  the  burial  of  Christ,  except  something  may  be  gathered  from  these 
passage?;.  And  if  it  did,  immersion  cannot  have  any  possible  resem- 
blance lo  the  burial  oi  Christ,  for  he  was  not  covered  up  in  the  earth  but 
only  laid  in  a  sepulchre  ;  made  of  a  rock.  That  Christ  was  never  buried, 
is  plain  from  the  evangelist  Matt.  27:  50,  GO.  Again,  "  we  read,  Mark 
16:  1,  that  when  the  sabbath  was  past,  Mary  Magdalene  «??ci  o^/iers  had 
brought  sweet  spices  that  they  might  come  and  anoint  him  to  prepare 
him  for  his  burial."  Now  they  "affirm  that  (strictly  speaking)  Christ 
was  never  buried  at  all,"  he  was  only  laid  into  a  rock.  "Now  to  this. 
What  kind  of  resem.blance  can  immersion  havel    None  at  all."  * 

Baptisl. — My  brother,  if  Pedobaptists  say  that  Mark  oi  any  of  the  Evan- 
gelists represent  "Mary  Magdalene  and  others  as  bringing  sweet  spices 
to  the  sepulchre  to  anoint  Christ  to  prepare  him  for  his  burial,"  I  know 
not  where  they  find  it.  (Such  persons  should  read  the  last  chapter 
in  Revelation.)  Read  John  19:39-42.  Mr.  Carson  says  [p.  240]  that 
"  Thapio  applies  to  all  kinds  of  burial.  No  doubt,  originally,  in  all  coun- 
tries burial  was  by  digging  a  pit,  and  covering  the  dead  with  the  mould. 
But  when  repositories  were  built  for  the  dead,  or  were  scooped  out  of 
rocks,  the  same  word  was  .still  used.  This,  in  fact,  is  the  case  wiih  our 
own  Avord  buryr  "The  idea  that  is  common  to  all  hrtrying,  is  that  of 
covering  the  dead,  or  surrounding  them  with  something  to  keep  them 
from  violation."  Hence  when  a  thing  is  completely  covered  it  is  said  to 
be  buried.  Hence  the  Shepherd,  when  his  sheep  is  covered  up  with  snow, 
says  that  they  are  buried.  And  when  a  house  falls  on  its  inhabitants 
or  other  objects,  we  say  they  are  buried  in  its  ruins,  or  when  a  vessel  and 
its  crew  sink,  we  say  they  are  buried  in  the  sea  or  ocean  ;  they  found  a 
watery  grave.  In  the  ck^'szVs,  a  vessel  sinking  or  going  under  water  is 
said  to  be  baptized.  (See  Carson's  treatise,  pp.  93,  94,  95,  9G.  Stuart, 
pp.  299,  300.  Judd,  pp.  22,  24,  25,  154  to  159.)  You  doubtless  recollect 
that  we  have  before  referred  to  the  fact  that  Aveapons  were  found  two 
hundred  years  after  the  battle  o[  Ovchomem-ys  baptized  ret  the  earth  etc. 
(See  Judd,  p  4  1.)  Who,  my  friend,  can  read  these  passages  and  discover 
no  analogy  or  resemblance  between  an  ivimersion  and  a  burial?— But 
Jesus  Christ  was  buried,  as  many  others  were  buried.  (See  the  account 
given  by  Josephus,   of  Herod's  burying  Aristobulus.)     It  appears  by  the 

meanings  of  the  Doctor  are  resolvable  into  that  one.     In  like  manner  near- 
ly every  one  of  the  IG  meanings  which  Mr.  Parkhurst  the  lexicographer 
assigns  to  en  and  the  18  to  eis  may  be  resolved  into  in  and  into. 
*  "  Scripture  Directory  to  Baptism,"  by  a  Layman,  pp.  37,  38. 


97 

account,  that  ihey  ]aid  Inm  in  a  inagnificeni  sepulchre,  on  abler  or  couch 
{khnc)  built  as  a  house  for  the  dead;  and  this  was  called  a  burial.  Now, 
if  Christ  (strictly  speaking)  was  not  buried,  then  Aristobulus  was  not. 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  representations  of  Scripture,  and  see  whether 
they  harmonize  with  the  representations  of  some  modern  Pedobaptists  on 
this'  subjec\  For  it  should  be  remembered,  that  the  testimonies  we  have 
given,  show  conclusively  that  ior  16  or  17  centuries,  it  was  the  prevailing 
opinicn  that  baptism  was  an  emblem,  or  representation  of  the  death,  burial, 
and  resurreciion  of  Christ.  (See  Stuart,  pp.  358.  Christian  Revievv', 
Vol.  3,  pp.  99  to  105.)  "For  as  Jonas  was  three  days  and  three  nights  in 
the  whale's  belly,  so  shall  the  Son  of  man  be  three"  da)'s  and  three  nights 
in  the  heart  of  earth.  Matt.  12:  40.  Now,  if  this  representation  I  was 
fulfilled,  it  was  fulfilled  by  his  laying  three  days  in  this  sepulchre,  which 
was  the  ''  /'cart  ofthecarlh/'  It  is  usual  for  a  lidge  of  rocks  to  have  earth 
on  the  top.  "  The  Savior  was  under  the  earth  here,  as  well  as  if  he  had 
been  buried  in  a  pit  at  the  bottom  of  the  valley."  A  Geologist  we  think 
will  not  call  this  statement  in  question.  "Again,  Christ's  being  buried  is 
(aught  as  a  part  of  the  gospel."  Whoever  affirms  then  that  he  was  not 
really  buried  contradicts  and  questions  the  truth  of  the  Gospel.  See  Cor. 
15  :  i-  4.  The  last  part  which  reads  thus  ;  "  For  I  declared  unlo  you  first 
of  all,  that  which  I  also  received,  how  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  ac- 
cording to  the  Scriptures;  and  that  he  was  buried,  and  that  he  rose  again 
the  third  day  according  to  the  Scriptures."  it  is  worthy  of  note  here. 
that  whatthe  evangelist  calls  three  days  in  the  heart  of  the  earih  is  called 
by  the  apostle  being  buried.  Now  it  must  be  admitted  that  there  is  a  like- 
ness betweenithis  burying  and  immersion.  But  no  necessity  exists  that  ihe 
likeness  should  regard  the  manner,  in  which  the  body  is  covered  with 
water.  The  emblem  consists  in  the  actual  state  of  the  body  as  being  cov- 
ered with  water.  So  the  likeness  to  the  resurrection,  is  to  be  seen,  not  in 
the  manner  the  body  is  taken  out  of  the  water,  but  in  the  rising  itself. 
'•  There  was  no  likeness  between  the  way  of  killing  a  sacrifice  and  the 
manner  or  Christ's  death.  There  was  no  likeness  between  the  manner 
in  which  Jonah  was  swallowed  by  the  whale,  and  again  thrown  out,  to 
the  way  in  which  Christ  was  carried  into  the  tomb,  and  in  which  he  came 
out  of  the  tomb  :  Yet  Jonah  in  the  whale's  belly,  was  an  emblem  of 
Christ  as  being  three  days  in  the  heart  of  the  earth."  The  same  might 
be  said  respecting  the  resemblance  of  a  loaf  of  bread  in  the  Lord's  Supper 
to  Christ's  body.  Now  as  the  body  of  our  Savior  in  the  Sepulchre  was 
encompassed  on  all  sides  and  covered  over  by  it,  so  the  bodies  of  believ- 
ers, in  immersion  in  water  is  encompassed  on  all  sides  and  covered  with 
this  element.  Cyril,  of  Jerusalem,  A.  D.  374,  says  :  "You,  descending 
into  the  water,  and  being  ^iz/zf^*-/ n;  ^Ae  u-ater,3.s  Chvist  in  the  Sepv.lckre, 
arise  to  newness  of  life."  Basil  the  Great,  A.  D.  360,  says  :  "  How  shall 
we  accomplish  a  descent  into  the  grave'?  By  baptism  imitating  the  bu- 
rial of  Chri-st."  Who  now  will  contend  that  there  is  no  likeness  in  bap- 
tism to  the  burial  of  Chrisf? 

Pcdobaptist. — The  objection  which  you  have  so  triumphantly  answered, 
was  advanced  to  elicit  information,  and  not  because  1  deemed  it  a  valid 
or  weighty  one,  though  it  is  regarded  as  such,  by  many  of  my  brethren. 
1  presume  you  are  aware,  that  most  of  the  Pedobaptists  represent  your 
denomination  as  being  so  bigoted  and  sectarian  in  their  views  as  to  con- 
icnd  for  a  particular  mode  of  baptism,  which  is  the  mere  costume  or  non- 
essential part  of  religion.  This  characteristic  trait  in  your  denomina- 
tion, they  say,  was  strikingly  exemplified  in  the  schism  and  division  they 
made  in  the  American  Bible  Society. 

Baptist. — As  it  respects  modes  of  baptism;  my  brolherj  I  have  said  all  I 


deem  requi.sile  on  that  point,  I  have  only  to  sa}--  that  we  consider  nothing 
baptism,  short  of  immersion  ;  hence  we  contend  for  the  rite  itself  and  not 
for  the  manner  in  which  il  is  performed.  With  regard  to  the  allegation 
that  we  divided  the  Ameiican  Bible  Soviet}',  in  onr  zeal  lor  this  external, 
non-essential  rite,  I  wonld  remark  that  the  Pedobaptists  are  the  last  per- 
sons, 1  should  think,  that  would  bring  such  a  charge  as  this  against  us, 
'=  Those  wlio  live  in  glasshouses  should  not  thru^v  slones"  Now  from 
the  organization  of  the  A.  B.  S.  up  to  the  hoar,  "when  it  extinguished  the 
last  ray  of  our  hopes,"  by  passing  the  obnoxious  resolution  that  would 
cause  us  to  violate  our  own  convictions  of  duty  to  God,  and  to  the  millions 
of  perishing  heaihen,  or  else  banish  us  entirely  from  its  connection  ;  yes 
up  10  ihathour,  it  received  the  warm  and  hearty  co-operation  of  the  Bap- 
tist denomination.  The  contributions  of  the  Baptists  to  this  society  have 
amounted  to  probably  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  dollars.* 
And  yet  the  Society  has  appropriated  less  than  29,000  dollars  to  aid 
the  translations  made  by  our  missionaries.  It  should  be  known  that  the 
Baptist  translators  have  not  altered  their  course  ;  nor  have  their  versions 
undergone  any  change  as  it  regards  the  translation  of  the  word  bapiizo. 
But  the  Pedobaptists  belonging  to  the  Society,  changed  their  course  ;  and 
altered  the  purport  of  their  constitution,  by  annexing  a  new  resolution  to 
it,  which  produced  the  schism  and  division  in  the  society  you  have  unjustly 
laid  to  the  charge  of  the  Baptists,  notwiih.standing  all  their  remonstrances. 
The  main  object  of  this  measure  appears  to  have  been  to  bani.sh  the  Bap- 
tist translations,  not  on  the  ground  that  they  were  unfaithful,  cr  that  the 
lieathen  would  be  taught  by  them  Avhat  was  not  the  meaning  of  hapiizo, 
but  because  this  word  and  its  cognates  were  faithfully  translated  by  a 
word  equivalent  toimmerse,  which  t'.cy  with  the  learned  world  admit, is 
the  true  meaning  of  the  term.  Now,  my  friend,  when  we  reason  v-ith 
these  persons  on  the  true,  literal  import  of  the  term  ;  and  ply  them  with 
arguments  they  find  themselves  unable  to  refute,  ve  are  met  with  the  re- 
ply, "well  it  will  make  no  difference  as  it  is  an  external,  non-essential 
rite,  and  of  course  not  a  saving  ordinance  ;''t  and  yet  these  same  persons 
make  it  so  e55c?i7iftZ,  that  they  have  in  effect  declared  by  the  resolution 
they  passed,  and  their  subsequent  conduct,  that  none  of  the  funds  of  th? 
American  Bible  Society  (in  wiiich  the  Baptists  at  that  time,  had  jusi  as 
equitable  a  right  as  themselves,  and  into  whose  treasury  they  had  cast 
$50,000  for  wiiich  they  never  received  aught,)  should  be  appropriated  to 
circulate  Baptist  translations;  and  consequently  that  the  millions  of  hea- 
then for  whom  these  translations  were  made,  may,  for  aught  they  will  do. 
perish  in  their  sins  and  pa.ss  on  to  an  eternity  ol  endless  woe,  lor  the  want 
of  that  light  and  knowledge,  which  it  is  in  their  power  to  bestow,  bat 
which  they  resolved  and  determined  to  withhold,  solely  on  the  ground 
that  this  little  non-csscntial  word  bnptizo  is  correctly  translated  instead  ol 
bsing  transferred,  wrapped  up  in  a  dead  language.^ 

*  See  the  2d  annual  report  of  the  American  Foreign  Bible  Society,  p, 
Gl. 

t  Now  itisAYorthy  of  remark  here,  that  the  pleading  the  unimportance 
of  this  truth  by  Pedobaptists,  as  a  justification  of  their  non-compliance 
Avith  the  requirement  of  Christ,  (indicated  by  the  plain  specific  impoit  of 
the  termbaptizo,)  is  a  virtual  acknowledgment  that  tlicij  are  wrong  and  u-e 
are  right. 

tThe  language  of  the  learned  Dr.  Campbell  is  apposite  to  this  case. 
"Poes  that  deserve  to  be  called  aversion,  which  conveys  neither  the  matter 
nor  the  manner  of  the  authorl  Not  the  matter,  because  an  unintelligible 
word  conveys  no  meaning  ;  not  the  manner,  because  what  the  author  said 


Now  in  the  pertinent  language  of  Dr.  Johnson,  (in  his  letter  on  the 
translation  of  the  Scriptures  into  the  Gaelic  language,)  •'  If  obedience  to 
the  will  of  God  be  necessar}'  to  happiness,  and  knowledge  of  his  will  ne- 
cessary to  obedience,  how  can  he  that  withholds  this  knowledge  or  delays 
it  [on  such  a  pretext]  be  said  tj  love  his  neighbor  as  himself'?''  My 
brother,  it  appears  to  me  that  the  Pedobaptists,  who  are  ignorant  of  the 
true  import  otbaptizo,  and  '■  voluntarily  or  wilfully  continue  thus  are 
guiliy  of  all  t-he  crimes  which  that  ignorance  produces  ;  [be  they  divisions, 
schisms,  controversies,  etc.]  as,  to  him  that  extinguishes  the  tapers  of  a 
light  house,  might  be  justly  imputed  the  calamities  of  shipwrecks.'' 

Again,  you  are  well  aware  I  presume  that  the  A.  B.  Society  has  aided 
translations  in  which  the  most  important  words  have  been  so  rendered,  or 
mistranslated  as  to  teach  and  sanction  the  greatest  errors.  And  although 
it  refuses  to  aid  in  the  distribution  of  Baptist  translations,  still,  at  the  same 
time,  it  continues  to  circulate  versions  in  which  the  word  baptizo  is  ren- 
dered precisely  as  in  our  versions  by  a  word  signifyingto  dip  or  immerse . 
its  resolution  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  See  Mr.  Maclay's  ad- 
dress, pp.  12, 13. 

As  it  respects  the  charge  ol bigotry  and  sectarianism,  which  is  so  often 
brought  against  the  Baptists  and^'their  missionaries,  because  they  have 
translated  the  vv-ord  baptizo  by  a  word  signifying  to  immerse,  in  those  ver- 
sions of  the  Bible  which  they  have  given  the  heathen  nations  in  their  own 
tongue.  1  beg  leave  to  introduce,  as  a  complete  refutation  of  this  charge, 
thelanguage  of  the  late  learned  and  eminently  gifted  servant  of  the  British 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  Mr.  Greenfield,  v,'ho  some  years  since  in  hi.s 
defence  of  the  Seramporc  Baptist  translators,  says:  '•  Bigotry,  that  is 
blind  zeal  and  prejudice,  the  Baptists  cannot  justly  be  accused  "of,  Vv-hile 
they  hdixe  \.h.e primitive  sense  o{ {he  term,  and  the  rendering  of  so  many 
ancient  andm.odern  translations,  as  the  foundation  upon  which  they  have 
grounded  their  version  ;  nor  can  they  consistently  be  charged  wifh  secta- 
rianism, while  they  are  lound  in  company  \cith  the  churches  of  Syria, 
Arabia,  Ethiopia,  Egypt,  Germany,  Holland,  Sweden,  Denmark  and  oth- 
ers, together  wi'h  the  church  of  England  itself.  If  they  be  bigots  I  know 
not 'what  name  the  advocates  of  pouring  or  of  sprinkling,  who  hd^veno  such 
basis  to  rest  on,  merit ;  and  if  theirs  be  a  sect,  it  must  be  confessed  to  be  a 
very  ancient,  and  very  extensive  one. 

"But  there  is  another  point  of  view,"  he  continues,  (and  while  he  writes 
the.se  memorable  words,  he  says,  as  a  preface  to  them,  '  I  wish  it  to  be 
distinctly  understood  that  I  am  neither  a  Bapiis:  nor  the  son  of  a  Baptist,') 
"  in  which  the  opponents  of  the  Serampore  missionaries  should  consider 
the  subject:  and  one  which  involves  the  most  important  consequence?. 
Before  they  arraign  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  as  guilty  of  a 
gross  and  unpardonable  dereliction  of  duty  in  aiding  the  Serampore 
translators,  and  prefer  a  recommendation  for  them  to  vvathdraw  that  aid, 
they  should  be  fully  prepared  to  carry  their  censure,  as  well  as  their  rec- 


simply  and  familiarly,  the  translator  .says  scholastically  and  pedantically. 
And  if  former  translators  have  from  superstition,  from  fear  of  giving  o"f- 
ience,  or  from  any  other  motive,  been  induced  to  adopt  so  absurd  a  method, 
shall  we  think  ourselves  obliged  to  imitate  them?  *  *  Shall  we  make 
lessaccount  of  communicating  clearly  the  truths  revealed  by  the  Spirit, 
than  of  perpetuating  a  phraseology  which  contributes  to  the  advancemen' 
of  ignorance  and  of  an  implicit  deference  in  spiritual  matters  to  human 
authority^'  Such  would  be  the  efi'ect  of  transferring  the  \v  or  a  baptizo  ^ud 
its  cognates  in  heathen  languages  instead  of  translating  it. 


100 

ommendation,  to  a  much  greater  extent.  In  consistency,  if  that  aid  be 
withdrawn  frjinthe  Seranipore  missionaries  because  they  have  render ' 
ed  baptizo  to  immerse,  then  must  it  also  be  withdraAvn  from  the  churches 
of  Syria,  ol  Arabia,  of  Abyssinia,  of  Egypi,  of  Germany,  of  Holland,  of 
Denmark,  &c.;  and  the  venerable  Peshito  Syriac  version,  the  Arabic 
versions  of  the  Propaganda,  of  Sabat,  &c.;  the  Ethiopic,  the  Coptic,  and 
other  versions  must  ail  be  suppressed.  If,  however,  they  are  not  thus 
prepared  to  carry  their  recommendation  to  its  fullest  extent,  then  must 
ihey  close  their  mouths  forever  against  their  Baptist  brethren.  But  should 
a  faction  so  far  prevail  over  the  good  sense  of  the  committee,  and  the 
sound  and  catholic  principles  upon  which  the  Society  is  founded,  and 
which  has  ever  been  iis  boast  and  glory,  as  well  as  the  most  powerful 
means  ot  its  extraordinary  success,  then  its  honors  will  be  laid  in  the  dust- 
and  from  a  splendid  temple  in  the  service  of  which  the  whole  Christian 
world  could  cordially  unite,  it  will  dwindle  into  a  contemptible  edifice, 
dedicated  to  party  feelings,  motives,  and  views.  The  broad  basis  upon 
which  it  is  founded  is  its  strength  and  security;  contract  this  within 
narrower  limits  and  it  falls  into  ruins."  The  remarks  of  Mr.  Greenfield 
are  applicable  to  the  proceedings  of  the  American  Bible  Society. 

Pedobaptist. — My  friend,  if  the  Baptists  have  the  ground  and  argument 
on  this  subject  as  you  seem  to  intimate,  why  are  the  Pedobaptists  so  much 
blessed  of  Godl 

^a^^is^,— I  answer,  why  has  Popery  with  all  its  glaring  superstitions 
been  permitted  to  extend  itself  over  one  half  of  the  Christian  world'? — 
Why  has  the  Mahommedan  religion  been  allowed  to  spread  its  triumphs 
over  some  of  the  fairest  portions  of  the  globe'?  We  cannot  tell.  Why 
are  some  churches  holding  error  among  ourselves,  prospered'?  If  you 
are  a  Presbyterian,  I  ask.  wh}^  are  our  Methodist  brethren  favored  of 
God,  while  they  reject  the  important  doctrines  of  election,  and  the  ):>€rse- 
verance  of  the  Saints?  If  you  are  a  Methodist  I  inquire,  why  are  Pres- 
byterians distinguished  b^  the  favor  of  Heaven,  while  they  embrace  such 
pernicious  errors  as  eleciion  and  the  Saints'  perseverance'?"  Similar  ques- 
tions equally  appropriate  might  be  raised  respecting  the  differences  of  the 
Episcoj^alian  aad  Congregational  modes  of  church  government.  But  it 
is  not  our  province  to  answer  these  questions,  or  to  determine  how  great 
errors  churches  may  hold  and  yet  be  prospered  of  God,  for  the  sake  of  the 
truth  they  wield  in  his  cause.  Your  denomination,  my  friend,!  presume 
you  will  find  are  blessed,  and  pro.spercd,  in  proportion  to  their  real  piet}' 
and  activity  in  disseminating  those  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  which  are  fun- 
damental to  salvation. 

But  the  proper  question  to  be  asked  here  is  not  "why  has  God  prosper- 
ed Pedobaptist  denominations'?"  but  has  he  blessed  them  in  the  adminis- 
tration ofihe  rite  of  iufavit,  or  even  believer's  sprinkling  to  the  sam.e  ex- 
tent that  he  has  the  Baptist  denomination,  in  the  observance  of  the  rite  of 
primitive  immersion'? 

As  a  eonclusiveanswer  to  this  question,  I  would  introduce  the  testimo- 
ny of  the  Rev.  L.  Portkk  of  Lowel,  Mass.,  (given  in  the  Christian 
Watchman,  June  21st,  1839.)  in  confirmation  of  ihe  remark  made  by  Prof. 
Jewktt,  in  his  work  on  Baptism,  ^H'  at  God  has  frequently  blessed  this  ordi- 
nance [believei's  baptism]  to  the  conversion  of  souls."  ''This  idea,"  says 
lie,  "admits  of  abundant  proof.  Hundreds  o-f  Christians  can  testify,  thai 
their  first  permanent,  serious  impressions  vvere  obtained  at  the  river's  side. 
It  was  when  witnessing  the  baptism  of  an  only  sister,  by  the  late  beloved 
Prof.  Knowlk.s,  then  pastor  of  the  Second  Baptist  Church  in  Boston,  that 
my  own  attention  was  attracted  to  the  subject  ol  religion. 


101 

'•■  It  has  been  my  happiness  to  baptize  almost  eve fy  month  for  the  past 
four  years,  and  I  do  not  know  ot  one  instance  in  which  the  ordinance  has 
not  been  blessed  to  the  conviction  an^l  conversion  of  one  or  more  individ- 
uals. No  doubt  each  time  persons  have  been  seriously  affected,  and  per- 
haps converted  to  God,  whose  names  I  shall  not  know  until  the  judg- 
ment da/. 

"  I  have  made  extensive  inquiries  among  intelligent  Pedabaptist  min- 
isters and  members,  oi  various  denomination?, whether  they  ever  knew 
a  person  converted  to  God,  or  even  deeply  convicted  of  sin,  by  witness- 
ing the  sprinkling  of  a  child,  or  an  adult,  and  have  not  yet  learned  that 
such  a  case  ever  occui red.  Allow  me  to  ask,  through  ihe  Watchman, 
whether  any  individual,  pastor,  deacon  or  member,  can  cite  any  Avell  au- 
thenticated instancfcl  [No  answer  has  ever  been  given  to  this  question.] 
Gluery,  Avhich  is  God's  ordinance^  the  one  he  blesses  by  his  Spirit,  or  the 
one  he  does  not] 

"  I  have  baptized,  during  the  past  four  years,  upon  an  average,  one 
Pedobaptist  individual  each  month,  more  than  half  being  members  of 
churches.  Last  Sabbath  I  baptized  a  married  lady,  vvho  has  been  for 
several  )'ears  connected  with  a  Congregational  church  in  this  city.  Also 
at  the  same  time  a  Congregational  clergyman,  Rev.  Tobias  Pinkham, 
for  the  last  three  years  pastor  of  a  Congregational  church  in  Dracut. — 
Mr.  Pinkham's  attention  to  this  subject  was  awakened  by  learning  that 
Prof  Jewett,  who  was  with  him  at  Andover,  had  changed  his  senti- 
ments. Thus  the  •'  Presbyterian  Elder,'  who  became  a  Baptist  at  Mariet- 
ta,  has  been  blessed  to  the  conversion  of  two  Pedobaptist  ministers  already. 
Gluery.  Suppose  the  Elder  had  become  a  Baptist  in  sentiment,  but  had 
not  gone  forward  in  baptism,  would  brethren  Jewett  and  Pinkham  have 
been  baptized  at  this  time]  Q.uery.  How  much  sin  would  th^  Elder 
been  guilty  of  if  he  had  not  been  baptized  at  the  time  he  was]  * 

"Judson  became  a  Baptist  by  studying  the  Bible  upon  that  point  to  meet 
the  Baptists  in  India.  So  did  Pv,ice.  Merrill  became  a  Baptist  by  search- 
ing the  Bible  for  arguments  against  them,  so  did  Chapin  and  Grosvenor, 
and  Hackett,  and  Loomis,  and  Nott,  and  Jewett,  and  Pinkham,  and  many 
others.  What  wiUbe  the  result  of  other  candid,  and  pious,  and  intelligent 
Pedobaptists,  who  undertake  to  preach  against  the  sentiments  of  the  Bap- 
tists]" 

Nor  is  it  by  any  means  true  as  the  objection  seems  to  assume,  that  the 
Baptists  have' not  been  visited  by  the  smiles  of  the  King  of  Zion.  With- 
out creed  or  catechism,  without  General  Assemblies,  or  other  high  judi- 
catories of  the  church,  without  archbishops  or  bishops,  they  have  walked 
together  harmoniously,  uniting  with  each  other  in  eflbrts  to  extend  Christ's 
Kingdom  till  they  embrace  in  their  congregations  a  larger  body  of  per- 
sons if  not  a  larger  number  of  believers  than  any  other  denomination  in 
the  United  States.  The  Baptists  were  the  pioneers  in  the  modern  mis- 
sionary enterprise.  They  were  the  originators  of  the  Monthly  Concert 
of  Prayer,  and  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  the  parent  of  the 
American  Bible  Society.  They  have  also  taken  the  lead  in  the  tianila- 
tioDS  of  the  Bible.     "  Within  the  last  forty  years  their   missionaries  have 

*  Who  that  feels  it  his  duty  to  follow  the  example  and  command  of 
his  Savior  in  this  expressive  ordinance  knows  how  many  are  kept  back 
from  the  performance  of  this  duty  by  his  example,  and  again  how  many 
might  be  convicted  of  their  sins  and  converted  to  God  by  his  consci-. 
encious  obedience  to  the  truth.  God  never  commands  a  man  to  do  any 
thing  which  it  is  either  wise  or  piu  jent  for  him  to  neglect  or  disobey. 


102 

irrnsir.lcd  ihe  Bi'ale  into  beiween  foriy  :.nd  fifty  dilTerenl  languages." — 
Jndeed  all  \he  versions  ihey  have  made,  embrace  the  languages  and  dia- 
lecis  spoken  by  more  than  half  oJ  the  heathen  ivorld.  To  tliem  in  a  spe- 
cial miinner  are  we  indebted  for  the  civil  and  religious  liberty  we  nov* 
enjoy. 

Pcdohnpt'at. — My  brother,  how  do  you    substantiate  the  asscrlicn  Ib.at 
v,e  are  "indebted  to  the  Baptists  for  our  civil  and  religious  liberty?" 

Baptist. — They  were  the  people  that  first  advocated  these  sentiments. 
]tis  to  Roger  William",  the  founder  of  Rhode  Isbiindand  the  first  Bapiisi 
rijurch  in  America,  that  we  turn  for  tha  first  dawnings  o^'that  Sun  of  civil 
r.nd  religious  freedom  wliicli  has  arisen  upon  our  Republic,  in  the  efful- 
gence of  his  glory.  Mr.  Bancroft  the  historian  says:  "He  was  the  first 
]eison  in  modern  Christendom  to  assert  in  its  plenitude,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Iii.'ert}-  of  conscience,  the  equality  of  opinions  before  the  law,  and  in  its 
defence,  he  was  the  harbinger  of  Milton,  the  precursor  and  superior  of 
Jeremy  Taylor.  For  Taylor  limited  his  toleration  to  afew  Christian  sects: 
the  philanthropy  of  Williams  compassed  the  earth."— Nourished  by  sen- 
timents like  these,  sentiments  emblazoned  on  the  pages  oi  inspiration  and 
imbibed  from  the  sacred  volume,  he  disdained  alike  the  despotic  laws  of 
church  and  state,  and  the  frown  of  iheeccksiastical  denuncialien  of  his 
Pedobaptist  brethien — he  left  the  soil  v.'here  religious  liberty  was  not  per- 
mitted to  dwell,  and  sought  ahome  with  tiie  savage  and  infidel,  which  h\i 
own  brethren,  who  had  fled  irom  tiie  sword  of  persecution  in  England,  re- 
fused him.  It  was  in  these  trying  circumstances  that  he  broke  away  from 
the  shackles  of  religious  thraldom,  and  opened  up  an  asylum  in  the  wilder- 
ness, (which  he  then  called  Providence,')  for  the  persecuted  of  every  de- 
nomination. Here,  he  and  his  associates,  in  163G,  established  a  code  of 
laws  "in  which,"  says  Judge  Story,  "we  read  for  the  first  time,  since 
Christianity  ascended  the  throne  oi'  the  Caesars,  the  declaration  that  'con- 
science should  be  free,  and  men  should  not  be  punished  for  worshiping 
God,  in  the  way  they  were  persuaded  he  required.''  And  from  this  dec- 
laration of  ptinciples  Rhode  Island  has  never  departed.  These  peculiar 
sentiments  of  religioLis liberty,  v/hich  have  since  been  adopted  by  every 
state  in  the  Union,  the  Baptists  were  the  first  to  proclaim,  exemplify,  arid 
defend.  Hence,  as  we  should  naturally  suppose,  they  choose  their 
own  religious  teachers,  whom  they  regard  as  their  "servants  for  good''  ac- 
knowledging no  foreign  jurisdiction,  and  no  man  their  master  but  Christ.^ 
These  distinguished  sentiments  and  prmciples  in  the  religious  system  of 
the  Baptists,  have  given  birth  and  vigor  to  the  Republican  habits,  insti.tu.- 
tioriS,and  governmentof  our  country.* 

Pedobaptist.— Bn\ ,  my  friend,  after  all  you  have  said  about  religious 
liberty,  etc.,  is  not  Ihe  question  about  baptism  of  trifling  importance'? 

Baptist. — But  is  it  aquestion  of  trifling  impoitance,  whether  men  shall 
lay  unhallowed  hands  on  an  ordinance  of  the  great  Head  of  the  Church 
rmd  profanely  strip  it  of  its  significance  and  its  teachings — whether  they 
5<hall  strike  down,  in  the  temple  ol  gospel  truth,  thenoble  pillar  of  justifying 
faith  -whether  they  -shall  lift  from    the  sinner's  conscience,  a  weight  of 

♦  Some  years  previous  to  the  American  Revolution,  there  was  a  Baptist 
f  hurch  near  the  house  of  Mr.  Jefierson  in  Virginia,  whose  monthly  meet- 
ings he  often  attended.  Being  asked  how  he  was  pleased  with  their 
church  government,  l.e  replied  that  "  it  had  struck  him  with  great  force, 
and  interested  him  very  much  ;  that  he  considered  it  the  only  form  of  pure 
democracy  that  then  existed  in  the  world,  i  nd  had  concluded  thatit  would 
be  the  besiplan  of  government  for  the  American  colonies." 


103 

fiersoiial  rer-poiisibilit}',  laid  thereby  the  Lord  Je^us  himself— whethei' 
they  shall  abrogate  a  law  of  the  King  of  Saints; — or  -whether  they  shall 
keep  tiis  ordinances,  as  they  have  been  delivered  in  the  Statute  Book  of 
Heaven,  revering  the  will  of  the  Sovereign,  and  observing  all  things 
whatsoever  he  haih  commanded!  ' 

Infant  baptism,  in  direct  opposition  to  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture, 
w  hich  teaches  us  that  every  one  must  believe,  be  baptized  and  give  an 
riccounl  of  hi/uself  unto J3iod,  declares  ihatihe  act  of  theparentin  theobserv- 
ance  of  this  rile,  liquidates  all  obligations  of  the  child,  even  if  lie  become 
a  believer,  to  obey  the  command  of  Christ  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism  — 
that  the  parent's  faith  shall  save  the  child!  A  celebrated  Pedobipti.^t 
minister  in  Boston  says  that  a  Christian  parent  who  uses  the  ordinance  of 
infant  baptism  aright,'  "may  b3 sure,  that  the  great  Shepherd  and  Bishop 
of  souls  has  written  ihe  name  of  that  child  before  him,  in  letters  which  his 
infinite  forbearance  and  mercy  will  long  keep  from  being  blotted  out, 
though  the  child  perversely  break  his  father's  covenant."  '=  If  the  parents 
die  while  the  child  is  young,  the  remembrance  of  its  dedication  to  God, 
and  the  contident  belief  that  it  was  received  into  his  covenant,  will  help 
them  to  look  at  it  Irom  the  dying  pillow   with  peace."* 

In  the  language  of  Prof.  Jeweit:  "Is  not  infant  baptism  as  exhibited  in 
these  extracts  manifestly  at  war  with  the  great  doctrine  of  justification 
byfaithI  This  teaches,  that /ff77'z,  one's  07/:?4  faith,  not  another's, — foit'i, 
not  '2/?o?7.-s,  either  his  own  or  another's  shall  save  a  man.  Shall  the  Bap- 
tists oe  charged  with  bigotry,  for  endeavoring  to  uphold  a  doctrine  on 
which  the  great  Apos'de  of  the  Gentiles  has  so  strenuously  insisted,  as 
lundamental  to  the  Christian  svstem." 

"I  need  say  nothing  of  the  faiial  influence  of  the  views  I  am  examin- 
ing on  multitudes  of  careless  adults,  who  are  encouraged  in  a  life  of 
impenitence,  by  complacently  dwelling  on  the  covenant  made  with  God 
on  their  behalf,  when  their  parents  presented  them  for  baptism.  From 
llieir  infancy,  they  have  been  accustomed  to  reflect,  that  they  have  re- 
ceived '  Ihe'seal  of  the  covenant,' have  been  'mide  members  of  Christ,' 
and  'children  of  God,'  having  been  regenerated  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  Is 
it  strange,  that  such  personsshould  feel  themselves  safe,  and  at  liberty 
to  continue  in  sin." 

Pedobaptist.—My  friend,  Pedobaplists  say  that  it  is  very  evident,^  that 
"  Baptists  attach  too  much  importance  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.'' 

Baptist. — "I  might  reply  that  on  some  occasions  Pedobaptisls  attach 
too  little  importance  to  it.  "When  individuals  are  led  to  inquire  respect- 
ing the  mind  of  Christ,  do  not  even  ministers  endeavor  to  quiet  their  un- 
easiness, by  telling  them,  'the  subject  ii:  of  no  consequence'  — 'it  is  a  mere 
external  ceremony' — 'it  i^not  worth  while  to  trouble  one's  self  about  it.' 
When  young  converts  are  seeking  to  know  the  will  of  their  Lord,  respect- 
ing theordinancesof  his  church,'do  not  their  spiritual  guides  often  ply 
them  with  'dissuasives'  from  investigation!  Do  not  parents  endeavor  to 
restrain  their  children  from  examination, bec:use  it  is  pleasant  to  have  all 
the  children  in  the  same  church  with  the  parents'?  Are  there  not  num- 
ber.^ who  will  not  listen  to  a  sermon  on  the  subjecll  And  do  not  even 
ihcalogical  students.,  while  pursuing  their  studies,  content  themselves  with 
a  partial  view  ot  the  matter,  forming  their  conclusions  without  reading 
a  single  Baptist  author!"  Do  not  many  other  Pedobaptisls,  whose 
minds  have  been  troubled,  by  reading  the  plain  declarations  of  Scripture 
on  this  subject,  endeavor  to  remove  their  scruples  by  turning  away  irom 

*  "'  The  Baptized  Child,''  by  Nehemiah  Adams,  Boston,  pp.  36,  58, 


104 

ihe  Bible,  find  every  tiling  that  treats  ot  this  matter;  or  else  atteiript  to 
quiet  their  coi^scicnccs,  by  persuading  themselves  that  it  is  a  mere  7wncs- 
^c?^/^■rt^  v7c,  find  that  their  iTifluence  or  usefulness  would  be  abridged,  if 
they  were  to  become  Baptists'?  Are  not  others  prevented  from  the  Scrip- 
tural observance  of  this  rite  by  being  told  thai  in.mersion  is  '^indecent,'' 
or  at  least  "unsuited  to  the  manners  of  a  polished  ageT'  Have  not  tven 
some  Pedobaplist  ministers  in  this  manner,  endeavored  to  hold  up  the 
jtrimitive  rite  of  immersion  enjoined  by  our  Savior  and  confessejly  prac- 
tised by  the  church  for  centuries  in  an  odious  light'?  Does  it  not  appear 
from  these  facts,  my  friend  that  many  Pedobaptisis  attach  too  little  im- 
portance to  this  Gospel  ordinance? 

Pcdclapiht. — IVly  brother,  if  you  think  that  Pedcbaptists  attach  too  little 
importaice  to  this  rite,  1  conclude  it  must  be,  because  you  lay  an  un- 
warrantable stress  upon  it.  I  suppose  the  Baptists  believe  it  to  be  a  sa- 
ving ordinance. 

Bapt'sl. — By  no  means;  so  far  are  we  from  regarding  it  as  such,  that 
^ve  believe  that  all  the  v.aters  of  Jordan  or  Lake  Erie,  cannot  wash  away 
sin— loat  a  person  must  profess  faith  in  Christ  and  give  satisfactory  evi- 
dence that  he  has  been  washed  and  cleansed  frovi  sin  by  i'u  atordng  blood  of 
C.r?.v/before  we  can  consider  him  in  the  I'ight  of  Scripture,  an  eligible 
subject  for  this  rite.  This  in  fact  constitutes  one  of  the  most  distinguisl;- 
ing  traits  in  our  denominational  character.  But,  though  we  do  not  regard 
lliisordinance  essential  to  salvation,  yet  we  believe  that  the  scriptural  ob- 
servance of  it,  is  essential  to  obedience.  We  believe  the  rite,  though  an 
external  one,  is  full  of  rich  instruction  to  the  believer,  if  it  be  ob.served 
in  the  manner  enjoined  by  Christ.  "And  as  every  rite  must  have  a  form, 
if  we  do  not  preserve  the  form  we  do  not  pracise  the  rite.  Hence,  im- 
mersion is  essential  to  baptism.  Hence,  baptism  (immersion)  is  essen- 
tial to  obedience  to  Christ; — essential  to  the  highest  instruction  and  com- 
Ibrt  ol  believers;— essential  to  the  best  morarimpression  on  unbelievers; 
—essential  to  the  purity  and  stability  of  the  church  of  Cnrist." 

But,  iny  friend,  as  we  are  repeatedly  charged  with  laying  an  undue 
stress  on  baptism,  we  would  state  as  our  clear  conviction  that  if  the 
truth  were  Icnovvn,  it  would  be  seen  that  it  is  thePedDbaptisis  them,selves, 
who  lay  unauthorized  stress  upon  this  ordinance.  It  is  well  known  that 
pouring,  sprinJding,  and  infant  baptism,  all  had  their  origin,  (and  even 
existence  for  centuries)  in  the  belief,  that  baptism  regenerated  the  soul. 
«nd  qualified  the  subject  for  admission  into  heaven.  Beli  3ving  that  all 
who  died  uubaptized  were  irrevocably  lost,  for  those  on  sickbeds  who  were 
considered  in  imminent  danger,  and  immersion  consequently  deemed  im- 
practicable, they  first  invented  pouring  as  a  substitute  for  baptism  and  af- 
terward .  sprinkling.  The  statements  of  Prof.  Stuart  and  Bp.  Smith  of 
Kentucky,  corroborate  this  historical  fact.  Hence  v»'e  perceivethe  impor- 
tance Pedobaptists  formerly  attached  to  this  ordinance.  Let  us  now  see 
M'hat  imi)ortance  is  attached  to  it  by  modern  Pedobaptisis. 

Mr.  Bai^nrs,  a  Presbyterian,  in  his  iSote  on  Mark,  1G  :  iO.  "It  is  wor- 
thyof  remark,  that  Jesus  has  made  baptism  of  so  much  importance.  He 
i\'\i\vot  ?c.y,  indeed,. that  a  man  could  mot  be  saved  without  baptism,  but 
he  has  strjngly  implied,  that  where  this  is  neglected,  Inoicing  it  to  be  a 
comviand  cf  the  Sav  or,  it  endangers  the  salvation  of  llic  soul.  Faithciud 
faptism  are  the  beginnings  ot  the  Christian  life:  the  one,  the  beginning 
of  piety  in  the  sonl ;  the  other,  of  its  manifestation  before  viai,  or  of  a  pro- 
fession of  religion.*  And  no  man  can  teil  how  much  he  endangers  his 
eternal  interest  by  being  ashamed  of  Christ  before  men. 

*  Is  the  baptism  of  an  infant  the  manifestation  before  men,  of  pietv  in 
its  soul? 


i05 

Matthew  Henry,  a  Congregationalist  and  ihe  distinguished  conimeil- 
tator.  "  The'gospel  contains  not  only  a  doctrine,  but  a  covenant;  and  by 
baptism  \^e  are  brought  in'o  that  covenani.  Baptism  wrests  the  keys  ot 
the  heart  out  of  the  hands  of  the  strong  man  armed,  that  the  possession 
maybe  surrendered  to  Him  whose  right  it  is.  *  *  *  This  then  is  the  ef- 
ficacy of  baptism;  it  is  putting  the  child's  name  into  the  gospel  grant. — 
AVe  are  baptized  into  Christ's  death,  i.  e.  God  doth  in  that'ordinance,. 
seal,  confirm,  and  make  over  totis,  all  the  benefits  of  the  death  of  Christ 
—Infant  baptism  speaks  an  hereditary  relation  to  God  that  comes  to  us 
by  descent." — T-^catise  on  Baptism. 

Dr.  Waterland,  an  Episcopalian  and  celebrated  scholar  and  divine  : 
•'  Baptism  alone  is  sufficient  to  make  one  a  Christian,  yea,  and  to  keep 
him  such  even  to  his  life's  end  ;  sincft  it  imprints  an  indelible  character 
in  such  a  sense  as  never  to  need  lepeating.'' 

Do  Presbyterians  charge  lis  with  placing  an  undue  stress  upon  this 
ordinance?     And  what  stress  do  they  lay  upon  it? 

In  their  "  Confession  of  Faith"  they  say  :  "  Baptism  is  a  sacrament  of 
the  New  Testament,  ordained  by  Jesus  Christ,  not  only  as  a  solemn  ad- 
mission of  the  party  baptized  into  the  visible  church,' but  z\so,  to  be  unto 
him  a  SIGN  and  a  SEAL,  of  the  covenmit  of  Grace^  cf  his  ingrafting  into 
Christ,  of  regeneration,  of  remission  ofsinsy 

Is  this  objection  brought  against  us  by  Congregationalists?  And  what 
stress  do  they  place  upon  baptism? 

Hear  the  learned  Dr.  D\v"ight.  "  When  children  die  in  infancy,  there 
is  much  and  very  consoling  reason  to  believe  that  they  are  accepted  be- 
yond the  grave."  He  further  adds,  "There  is,  I  think,  reason  to  hope 
well  concerning  other  children  dying  in  infanc}  ;  but  there  is  certainly 
peculiar  reason  for  Christian  parents  to  entertain  strong  consolation  with 
regard  to  their  offspring."  My  brother,  it  is  evident  from  the  language 
of  Dr.  Dwight  that  he  supposed  baptism  to  contribute  very  much  to  the 
salvation  of  infants. — The  language  of  Matthew  Henry  which  I  have  al- 
ready given  is  still  more  remarkable.  See  also  '•  The  Baptized  Child," 
pp.  36,  58.  3?, 

Do  Methodists  urge  this  objection?  And  hov/  essential  or  important 
do  they  deem  this  ordinance? 

The  celebrated  John  Wesley,  the  founder  of  Methodism,  says:  "  Bi/ 
Baptism,  v^'e  who  were  hy  nature  children  of  wrath,  rre  made  the  chil- 
dren of  God.  And  this  regeneration,  which  our  church  in  so  many  pla- 
ces ascribes  to  baptism,  is  more  than  barely  being  admitted  into  the 
church,  though  commonly  connected  therewith.  *  *  *  Being  grafted  in- 
to the  tody  of  Christ's  church,  we  arc  made  the  children  of  God,  by 
adoption  and  grace.  John  3:5.  By  water  then,  as  the  means  the  water 
of  baptism,  we  are  regenerated,  or  born  again:  whence  it  is  called 
by  the  apostle,  the  '  washing  of  regeneration  ' — In  all  ages  the  outv/ard 
baptism  is  a  means  of  the  inward.— Herein  we  receive  a  title  to,  and  an 
earnest  of,  a  kingdom  which  cannot  be  moved.  In  the  ordinary  way 
there  isnoother  means  of  entering  into  the  church  or  into  heaven. — If 
infants  are  guilty  of  original  sin,  then  they  are  proper  subjecls  of  baptism, 
seeing,  in  the  ordinary  way  they  cannot  be  saved  unless  this  be  washed 
away' by  baptism."— Wesley's  Works,  vol.6,  pp.  15,  J6.  N.  Y.  1832. 

Do  Episcopalians  present  this  objection?  And  what  stress  do  ihey  lay 
upon  this  rile? 

In  their  Catechism  occur  the  following  question  and  answer  :  "  How 
many  sacraments  hath  Christ  ordained  in  his  church?  A7isiver.  Two 
on]y,  as  generaWy  Tiecessary  to  salvation — that  is  to  say,  Baptism  and  the 
Supper  of  the  Lord."    After  an  infant  is  baptized  the  minister  is  required 


106 

tosav,  "Seeing  now^  dearly  beloved  brethren,  that  this  child  is  rcgene^d^ 
(cd  and  grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's  church,  let  us  give  thanks  unto 
Almighty  God  for  these  benefits."  And  then  the  prayer  of  Thanks- 
giving is  ofi'ered  thus  '■  We  yield  thee  hearty  thanks,  most  merciful  Fa- 
Uier,  That  it  hath  pleased  thee  to  rcgcncrale  this  irtfanl  with  the  Holy  Spir- 
it to  receive  him' for  thine  own  child  by  adoption,  and  to  incorporate 
him  into  thy  holy  church."  The  child  thus  baptized  is  required  to  learn 
his  catechism  before  confirmation.  In  that  catechism,  my  brother,  may 
be  found  this  question  and  answer,  which  show  t  lat  the  child  was  taught 
lu  view  baptism  in  the  same  light. 

Questio7i.  "  Who  gaveyou  this  name]  Ans'tccr.  My  sponsor  in  bap- 
tism wherein  1  was  made  a  member  of  Christ,  the  chid  of  God,  and  an  in- 
heritor of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven." 

Should  this  objection  come  from  Roman  Catholics,  (the  originators  of 
infant  baptism  and  sprinkling,)  let  us  see  what  stress  is  laid  upon  this 
institution  by  them. 

Take  the  Canons  and  Catechism  ol  the  Council  of  Trent:  "  If  any  one 
shall  say  that  baptism  is  not  necessary  to  salvation,  let  him  be  accursed. 
Sin,  whether  contracted  by  birth,  from  our  first  parents,  or  committed  by 
ourselves,  is,  by  the  admiral  virtue  of  this  sacrament  remifed  and  par- 
doned.--l'n  baptism,  not  only  sins  are  remitted,  but  all  tlie  punishments 
of  sins  and  wickedness  arc  graciously  pardoned  of  Go.l  =*  *  *  By  bap- 
tism we  are  joined  and  knit  to  Christ,  as  members  to  the  head.  By  bap- 
tism we  are  signed  with  a  character,  which  can  never  be  blotted  out  of 
our  soul.  Besides  the  other  things  which  we  obtain  by  baptism  it  opens 
to  every  owi  of  us  the  gate  of  Heaven,  which  before,  through  sin,  was 
shut."  * 

1  trust,  my  brother,  after  these  quotations  from  confessions  of  faith  and 
standard  authors  of  different  denominations,  that  you  will  not  again 
charge  us  with  placing  loo  much  stress  upon  this  ordinance.  Whatever 
ineaning  these  extract^s  may  have  been  designed  to  convey,  I  certainly 
have  never  met  with  expressions  so  extravagant  in  any  Baptist  author. 

Pcdobapiist.— My  brother,  I  was  not  aware  before,  that  any  standard 
E'edobaptisl  author  attachedso  much  importance  to  this  rile,  as  these  ex- 
tracts evidently  import.  There  is  another  objection  that  Pedobaptists 
very  frequently  urge  against  your  denomination.  The  Baptist  denomi- 
nation is  a  modern  sect.  It  is  but  about  two  hundred  years  since  their 
origin,  or  thatany  one  ever  heard  of  such  a  sect.  With  what  show  of 
reason  then,  can  they  claim  to  hold  the  doctrines  of  the  primitive  churches? 

Baptist.— My  friend,  if  it  could  be  proved  that  our  denomination  has 
not  existed  100  years  that  would  not  convict  us  of  error,  or  prove  that 

*  Baptism  is  deemed  so  indispensable  by  Roman  Catholics  that  even 
laymen,  physicians,  females,  etc.,  arc  authorized  to  administer  the  rite  in 
extraordinary  cases.  In  the  latter  part  of  tlie  17ih  century.  Father  Jerome 
Florentini  of  Lucca  published  the  4th  edition  of  a  quarto  to  explain,  con- 
firm, and  direct  the  baptism  of  infants  unborn.  No  less  than  forty  im- 
primatures  and  recommendations  from  divines,  bishops,  physicians,  uni- 
versities, etc.,  accompanied  this  book.  Sec  Bob.  Hist,  of  Bap.,  Lond.  Ed., 
1790,  p.  432.  In  the  year  1751,  F.  E.  Congiamil;e,  Doctor  of  Divinity  and 
Laws,  of  Palermo,  published  in  the  Italian  language  a  quarto  book  of  320 
pages  "  dedicated  to  all  the  guardian  angels  to  direct  priests  and  physi- 
cians how  to  secure  the  eternal  salvation  of  infants,  by  baptizing  tliem 
when  they  could  not  be  born."  We  thus  see  how  far  the  superstition  of 
infant  baptiso)  has  carried  people. 


107 

our  principles  are  of  recent  origin.*  To  do  tliis,  it  must  be  shown  by 
irrelragable  evidence  that  they  are  not  the  same,  as  those  observed  and 
practised  by  the  Apostles  and  primitive  Christians, 

The  allegation  that  the  Baptist  denomination  has  not  existed  but  about 
200  years  is  not  sustained  by  indubitable  evidence,*  We  find  by  the  sta-  ; 
tistic  report  ofthe  Baptist  Union,  convened  in  London  in  l^38,  that  there  i 
were  not  less  than  three  Baptist  churches  then  in  being,  formed  in  Eng- 
land, A.  D.  1600.  It  has  also  been  affirmed  that  "  ttie  Baptists  originated 
in  Germany  about  the  year  1522  at  the  beginning  ofthe  Reformation." 
It  is  true,  that  no  denomination  of  Protesta7i,fs  can  trace  the  origin  of  its 
present  name  farther  bade  than  about  the  time  of  the  Reformation  ;  and 
most  of  them  have  originated  since  that  time.  But  the  Baptists  as  a 
sect,  cannot  in  justice  be  called  Protestants,  having  alcvays  existed  iiide- 
pendently  ofthe  Romish  Cliurch  as  we  have  abundant  evidence  to  show. 
Still  it  appears  to  be  true,  that  their  present  name  was  assumed  about 
that  time;  probably  in  opposition  to  that  of  Anabaptists,  with  which  their 
enemies  were  constantly  reproaching  them. 

The  Penny  Cyclopgedia  published  in  London  says:  "  Little  is  known  of 
the  Baptists  in  England  before  the  sixteenth  century.  Their  name  then 
appears  among  the  various  sects  who  were  struggling  for  civil  and  re- 
jigiou.s  freedom.  Their  opinions,  at  this  early  period  v/ere  sufficiently 
popular  to  attract  the  notice  of  the  national  establishment,  as  i.s  evident 
from  the  fact  that  at  a  convocation  held  in  1536,  they  were  denounced  as 
'detestable  heresies  utterly  to  be  condemned,'  I  roclamations  lollowed 
to  banish  the  Baptists  from  the  kingdom:  their  books  were  burnt  and 
several  individuals  suffered  at  the  stake."'  "William  Rawtre  [in  the 
time  of  Henry  the  Fourth]  was  the  first  in  this  country  that  suffered  at  the 
stake  for  his  religious  opinions,  in  1401,  and  who  was  supposed  to  deny 
jnfantbaptism  ;  and  Edward  Wightman,  a  Baptist  of  Burton  iqion  Trent, 
[in  the  reign  of  James  the  First]  was  the  last  person  who  suffered  this 
cruel  kind  of  death  in  England.  So  that  this  denomination  has  the  honor 
of  boih  leadingthe  way,  and  bringing  up  the  rear  of  all  the  martyrs  who 
were  burnt  alive  in  England  ;  besides  which  a  great  number  of  those  who 
suffered  death  for  their  religion,  in  the  200  intervening  years,  were  of 
the  Baptist  denomination,"*-  And  from  Davis'  History  of  the  Welch 
Baptists,  it  is  evident  that  persons  believing  our  peculiar  sentiments,  have 

*  But  it  antiquity  of  origin  alone  is  to  prove  a  denomination  right, 
then  it  must  be  conceded  that  the  Protestant  Pedobaptists  do  not  stand  on 
an  equal  footing  with  ihe  Catholics,  The  Church  of  England,  i,  e,  the 
English  Episcopal  Church,  "  first  formed  and  organized  out  of  Popery 
as  their  own  authors  abundantly  assert,  and  in  1534  adopted  immersion 
St  their  first  organization.  This  fact  i-^  confirmed  by  all  history,  by  the 
parliamentary  act  of  1534  entorcing  immersion,"  and  by  their  rituals  the 
first  of  which  was  printed  in  1547.  [See  Hague's  Historical  discourse, 
and  J.  F.  Bliss'  fourth  letter.]  The  Presbyterian  form  of  government  Avas 
invented  by  the  reformer  John  Calvin  not  far  x"rom  1541. —  The  princi- 
ples ofthe  reformation  commenced  in  Scotland  in  1527  and  the  Presby- 
terian polity  was  introduced  on  the  island  in  1592 by  Andrew  Melville.— 
The  first  Congregational  church  was  lormed  in  the  north  of  England 
in  1602  by  the  Rev.  John  Robinson.  [See  Encyclopedia  of  Religiou.s 
Knowledge.]  All  of  these  Protestant  dissenters  generally  practised  im- 
mersion down  to  the  seventeenth  century. 

t  Encyclopsedia  of  Religious  Knowledge — Backus'  Hist,  of  the  Ata. 
Baptists. 


108 

existed  in  Wales,  in  every  ago  of  iho  church  from  the  daysoftheftDOstles  * 
But,  my  friend,  we  do  not  contend  that  the  primitive  Christians  were  de 
nominated  Baptists,  but  that  they  were  what  would  now  be  railed  bv  this 
name.     We  have  abundant  historical  evidence  that  persons  ho'din^  our 
distinguishing  sentiments  (viz:  that  the  baptism  of  believers  on'aiDrofec 
sion  of  (aith,  consliiutes  the  only  valid  scriptural  baptism,)  have  existed  in 
every  age  of  the  Church,  from  the  commencement   of  the  Christian  Eri 
down  to  the  present  lime.  ' ' 

We  have  i\ho  proved  bv  the  highest  Pedobaptist  testimony  that  infant 
baptism  had  no  existence  till  the  latter  part  of  the  second  or  the  be^in 
ningofthe  -bird  century.  We  might  add  the  testimony  of  many  others 
to  this  point,  but  we  have  time  lo  name  only  a  few.  Salmasius  and  Sui- 
CEnus.  "  In  the  two  first  centuries  no  one  was  baptized  except  beino'^^n- 
strucied  in  the  faith  and  acquainted  with  the  docirine  ol  Christ  he*w'as 
able  lo  profess  hiraseU  a  believer."  Chamber's  Cyclopedia.  "  ItappeaVs 
that  in  primiiive  times  none  were  baptized  but  adults."  Arlide  Baptism 
CuRCELAUs  says:  "That  infant  baytism  was  introduced  without 
she  command  of  Christ:  that  inthetwo  first  cemuries  after  Christ 
it  was  altogether  unknown  :  but  in  the  third  and  fourth  was  allowed  by 
afeio,  in  the  filth  and  following  a^^sMbegan  lo  obtain  in  divers  places."— 
The  testimonies  of  Btsnop  Barlow.  Danver.s,  M.  Dfc  La  Roque,  T.  Law- 
son  and  many  others  might  be  adduced  in  confirmation  o!  this  fact. 

Pedobaptisl. — My  friend,  excuse  me  for  interrupting  you,  but  if  the 
te.stimonits  you  have  adduced  are  to  be  relied  on,  I  would  inquire  how 
infant  baptism  was  fi  rst  introduced! 

Baptist.— h  was  on  the  ground  ihat  it  was  deemed  necessary  to  salva- 
tion, an*!  persons  dying  without  ii  were  consequently  lost.  Hence  the  En 
cyclopedia  Americana  says:  "  The  doctrine  of  Augustine,  thst  the  un- 
baplized  were  irrevocably  lost,  made  the  baptism  of  children  general.''— 
These  are  A  ugustimj's  words:  '•  JNot  onlv  pensions  who  are  come  to  the 
use  of  reason,  but  also  children,  and  infans  newly  born,  if  they  die  with- 
out baptism  do  go  into  everlasiing  fire."  The  learned  Strabo,  who  wrote 
A.  D.  8.50,  says:  "  It  is  to  be  noted  that   in    the  primitive  times  baptism 

*'■  In  [the  yearJ5i)t),  Gregory,  bisliop  oi  Home,  .sent  Austin  the  monk 
into  England,  to  brin?  the  Saxons  into  conformity  to  the  church  of  Rome; 
for  as  long  as  the  British  churchespossessed  the  country,  they  kept  sound 
in  the  taith,  andpure  in  the  worship,  order  and  discipline  ol  Christ.     At 
that  time  the  old  Britons  were  principally  in  Wales.     In  Bangor  on 
the  North  [of  this  principality]  was  a  college  containing  2,100  christians. 
This  college  sent  forth  many  useful    ministers  of  the   Gospel.     Au.stin 
gt)t  many  ot  these  to  a  council  he  kept  :  bjut  Worcestershire  ;  where  he 
propounded  to  them  the  embracing  the  Romish  r  tes,  etc.,  vjhich  tMy   re- 
fused.    Then  he  said  to  them,  .since  yon  will  not  assent  to  my  hcsls  gene- 
rally, asjcnt  you  to  me  specially  in  three  things:  The  first  in  your  keep- 
ing Easterday,  as  it  is  ordained  [at  Rome]     The  second,,  that  you  give 
Christendorn,  lo  children.     And  the  third,  that  you  preach  to  ihe'Saxons, 
as  I  have  exhorted  you:  and  all  other  debate  I  shall  sufl^er  you  to  amend' 
and  reform  among  yourselves.     But  t  ey  would   not."     Whereupon  he 
brought  the  Saxons  again.st  them  in  war  and  nearly   exiinguished   their 
failh.     {Abridged from  H.  Danveis.)     Humphrey  Loyde  gives  a  graphic 
description  of  ihe  destruction  of  the    college  of  Banuor  by  the  arrogant 
monk  Austin,  in  which  he  says  these  worthy  men,  and  the   whole  house, 
together  with  their  Library  (more  precious"  than  gold)  were  entirely  da- 
.Ktfoyed. 


109 

s^as  given  to  ihose  only  who  were  arrived  to  maturity  of  body  and  mind, 
bat  when  diligence  about  our  divine  religion  increased,  the  orthodox  un- 
deritandinif,  that  the  original  sin  of  Adam  did  involve  in  guilt,  lest  chil- 
dren should  perish,  appointed  them  to  be  b.ipiized  for  the  pardon  of  sins.'' 
Wall,  vol.  2,  p.  12. 

We  might  subjoin  a  multitude  of  testimonies  of  the  same  purport ;  but 
we  u'ill  only  mention  the  nnme.;  of  Anselm,  Bernard,  Dodwell,  Vossiuf,' 
Waterhind,  Church  of  VVittemburgh,  Church  of  Rome,  Council  of  Trent' 
and  Church  of  England.— (See  chap.  9th  of  Westlake's  view  ofbap.)— 
Even  after  ihe  introduction  of  infant  biptism.many  did  not  receive  it, 
and  many  opposed  ii.  This  fact  is  confirmfd  by  the  historical  account 
ot'ihe  following  f.thers  and  eminent  men,  whom  we  are  informed  "were 
born  of  chrisiian  parents  ani  yet  not  biptized  till  adult  age,"  viz  :  Con- 
stanline  who  flourished  about  A.  D.  325.  Basil  and  Gregory  Nazianzen 
about  A.  D.  300.  Ambrose  A.  D.  874.  Jerome  A.  D.  380."  Chrysostom 
A.D.  398.  Augustine,  400.  St  Austin,  597,  and  others.*  This  fact  is 
also  confirmed  by  "the  pressing  exortations,  lound  in  early  writings 
addressed  to  prolessed  christians  to  come  to  bapiism."t  t-  geiher  with  the 
nwful  anal  cmas  pronounced  at  different  times  by  the  dominant  party,  up- 
on those,  that  denied  infant  baptism.  Robinson  states  in  his  Risearchej:, 
that  "  there  is  no  trace  of  infant  biptism  among  the  Catholics  ofSpaiu 
earlier  than  the  year  517."  And  history  informs  us  that  it  was  introdu- 
ced into  England  by  Austin  in  596.  I  would  further  add  that  there  is 
strong  evidence  on  record,  that  the  infants  spoken  ot  by  Origen  and  o;hers, 
were  not  natural  infrints.  Cardinal  Beli.ahmine  observes  :  "  Orgen's  in- 
fants were  capable  of  repentance  ?nd  martyrdom  but  the  infants  of 
the  reformers  were  inc:p  b!e  of  either."  Bp.  Victor's  account  of  the 
churc'i  of  Carthage  and  Clement's  hymn  corroborate  this  statement  of 
Bellarmine.  See  W sllakc  i>n  Bap.  ch.  8/A.— From  these  testim.onies,  it 
is  clear  that  the  baptism  of  natural  infants,  was  nor  so  early,  not  so  gen- 
eral, as  many  Pedobapiis  s imagine. 

As  it  regards  the  rile  ot  primitive  immersion,  for  which  the  Baptists 
so  strenuously  contend,  we  have  shown  that  the  whole  world  with  few 
excep  ions  practised  it  tor  fifteen  centuries,  and  En2:land  for  sixteen; — 
while  ihe  Gi  te'c  church  have  ccn"inued  itiill  this  time.  We  would  also  re- 
mark that  Mosheim  with  all  hi^  prejudices  against  the  Baptists,  has  given 
a  de.scription  of  the  primitive  churches  which  will  not  apply  to  his  own, 
the  Lutheran,  nor  lo  any  sect  in  Christendom  except  the  Baptists.  "The 
churches  in  those  early  limes,"  he  says,  "were  eniiiely  independent, 
none  of  them  subject  to  any  foreign  jurisdiction  but  each  one  governed 
by  ir,s  own  rulers  and  laws,"  "A  bishop  during  the  first  and  second  cen- 
tury, was  a  person  v/ho  had  the  care  of  one  Christian  assembly.  In  this 
a5.sembly  he  acted  not  so  much  with  the  authority  of  a  master,  as  with  the 
zeal  of  a  Caithiul  servant."  "  B  ipiism  was  administered  in  the  first  cen- 
tury, without  the  public  assemblies,  in  places  appointed  ftr  that  purpose, 
and  w,  s  performed  by  immersion  of  the  whole  body  in  water"  Mr. 
Robinson  the  histoiian,  afier  a  most  thorough  research,  confirms  these 
statements  of  Mosheim,  and  expressly  affirms  that  "A  11  this  lime  they 
were  Baptist  churches;  and  though  all  the  lathers  of  the  four  first  ages, 
down  to  Jeiome,  were  of  Greece,  Syria  and  Africa,  though  they  gave 
great  number's  of  histories  of  the  baptism  of  adults,  yet  there  is"^not  on 
record  the  baptism  of  a  child  lill  the  year  370,  when  Galates,    the  dying 

*(SeeMiller's^History,  Wall's  tiist.  Int  Ban.,  Du  Pin.,  Grotius,  etc.) 
t  (See  Basil's  Orat.  Exhort,  ad  Bap.  in  Wall'i  Hist.  pt.  1,  chap.  13,  §  3.) 


110 

son  of  the  Emperor  Valens,  was  baptized,  by  order  of  the  jnonarch,  who 
swore  he  would  not  be  contradicted.  The  age  of  the  prince  is  uncertain, 
and  the  assigning  of  his  illness  as  the  cause  of  his  baptism,  indicate:* 
clear  enough  that  infant  baptism  was  not  in  practice." 

Pedobaptisl.-  My  friend,  before  I  interrupted  you,  you  staled  that  you 
"had  abundant  evidence  to  show  that  the  Baptists  have  always  existed 
indpendently  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  cannot  ilierefore  in 
jusLice  be  called  Protestants."  Now  as  this  is  a  new  idea  to  me,  it  would 
ba  very  gratifying  to  hear  what  historical  evidence  you  have  to  substan- 
tiate it. 

Baptist. — In  the  third  century  the  primitive  churches  became  corrupt- 
ed from  their  primitive  simplicity,  and  then  we  hear  of  the  consecration 
of  baptismal  water ;  the  use  of  sponsors  ;  the  imposition  of  hands  at  bap- 
tism ;  material  unction  at  confirmation;  prayers  for  the  dead;  infant 
communion  and  infant  baptism,  &c.  Then  those  who  contended  for 
'■the  apostles' doctrine  and  foUowship  and  for  the  faith  once  delivered 
to  the  saints,"  finding  the}  could  not  "resist  the  torrent  of  corruption,  grad- 
ually separated  themselves  from  a  community  that  had  become  unworthy 
of  the  Christian  name,"  The  prevailing  party  assumed  the  name 
Catholic  church,  and  denominated  the  true  church  heretics.  This  party 
under  different  names  such  as  Novatians,  Donaiisis,  eic,  "declared  their 
commimity  lo  be  the  only  true  church,"  and  "nolwiihsianding  the  repre- 
sentations of  their  adversaries"  ihey  have  no  doubt  "some  just  claims  lo 
be  regarded  as  the  pure,  uncorrupled  and  apostolic  churches  of  Christ,^' 
Ihey  baptized  anew  those  who  came  over  to  them  from  the  Catholics  and 
other  sects.  The  JNovatians  called  themselves  cai/mri,  that  is,  pure.— 
Crantz  (in  his  History  of  the  United  Biethren)  says:  'These  ancient 
Christians,  who,  besides  tjie  several  names  of  reproach  given  them,  were 
at  length  denominated  Waldenses,  from  one  of  their  most  eminent  teach- 
ers, Peter  Waldo,  daie  their  origin  from  the  be:.;inning  of  the 
fourth  century  ;  when  one  Leo,  at  the  great  revolution  in  religion  under 
Constantine  the  Great,  opposed  the  innovations  of  Sylvester,  Bishop  of 
Rome.' 

"The  Cathnri,  or  Puritan  churches  of  the  Novatians,  also,  had  at  that 
very  period  (about  A.  D.  325)  been  flourishing  as  a  distinct  communion 
for  more  than  seventy  years  all  over  the  empire,  maintaining,  by  the  ac- 
knowledgment of  their'enemies,  the  self-styled  Calholics  the  integrity  of 
tiie  true  faith,  together  wi:h  the  purity  of  discipline  and  the  power  of 
godliness  which  had  generally  disappeared  from  the  Catholic  churches. 
The  Puritans  being  exposed'  to  severe  and  sanguinary  persecution  lor 
dissent,  from  age  to  age  weic  compelled  to  >helter  themselves  from  the 
desolating  storm  in  retirement ;  and  when  they  reappear  on  the  page  of 
contemporary  history  to  propagate  their  principles,  they  arestyled  a  new 
.sect,  and  receive  a  new  name,  though  in  reality  they  are  the  same  p^orle. 

"  The  same  great  principles  of  attachment  to  the  word  of  God,  and  de- 
termined adherence  to  the  simplicity  of  its  doctrines,  discipline,  institu- 
tions, and  worship,  in  opposition  to  the  innovations  of  a  secular  spirit  and 
policy  on  the  one  hand,  and  o(  false  philosophy  or  of  pretended  apostoli- 
cal tradition^  on  the  o  her,  may  be  traced  under  the  name  of  Novauans, 
Donatists,  Luciferians,  and  /Erians,  from  the  third  to  the  seventh  centu- 
ry." In  the  seventh  century,  they  were  denominated  Paulicians,  and 
lalscly  by  some  Manichoeism  :  but'from  the  middle  of  this  to  the  end  of 
the  ninth  century,  they  worthily  sustained  by  their  preaching,  their  lives, 
and  their  martyrdoms,  their  claim  of  being  the  genuine  decendants  of  the 
primitive  churches.  From  Asia  Minor  they  spread  themselves  over  Eu- 
rope.   ♦    ♦     ♦    They  were  called  in  France   Bougres,  or  Bulgarians, 


Ill 

Tisserands  or  Weavers,  Bos  Homos  or  Good  Men.  In  Germany,  they 
were  called  by  the  old  name  of  Caihari,  orby  corruption  Gazari,  i.  e 
Puritans.  In  Italy,  Paterines,  Josephiists,  Arnoldisis  and  Frairicelli.— 
Thev  were  denominated  Waldeuses  [i.  e.  "inhahitanls  of  the  valleys,"  a.s 
Mr, "Robinson  shows,]  as  early  as  IIUO,  sixty  years  before  Peier  Waldo. 
Soon  after  this,  in  Languedoc  and  Piovence,  they  received  the  name  of 
Petrobrusians  and  Henricans,  from  their  celebrated  leaders  Peter  de 
Bruis,  &  Henry  hi?  successor,  who  powerfully  advocated  and  greatly 
extended  iheir  principles  among  the  most  intelligent  classes,  (from  1110 
to  1168.)  From  the  places  where  ihey  flourished  ihey  were  called  Tou- 
lousians,  Albigenses,  and  afterwards  Poor  Men  of  Lyons  and  Leonists. 
*  *  *  In  1160  some  of  them  crossed  from  Gascony  to  England,  v/here 
ihey  were  called  Pophlicians  and  Publicans,  corruptions  of  the  original 
name,  Paulicians.  About  this  lime  arose  thecelebiated  Peter  Waldo,  of 
Lyons,  whose  labors,  learning,  zeal  and  liberality  greatly  extended  their 
principles. 

"  I'heir  enemies  confirm  their  great  aniiquity.  'Reinerius  Saccho,  the 
bloody  inquisitor,'  Dr.Maciain  says,  (in  his  notes  to  Moshehn  vol.  1,  p. 
332,)  'who  exi^rted  such  a  furious  zeal  for  the  destruction  of  the  Wal- 
denses,  lived  about  bO  years  afier  Peter  Waldo,  and  must  therefore  be 
supposed  to  have  known  whether  he  was  the  real  founder  of  the  Walden- 
ses  or  Leonists,  and  yet  it  is  remarkable  that  he  speaks  ol  them  as  a  sect 
that  had  flourished  above  500  years.  This  carries  us  b.ick  to  the  year 
660,  the  time  of  the  appearance  of  the  Paulicians,  or  rather  of  iheir  great 
revival  and  increase  under  the  labors  cf  Constantine  Sylvanus.  Indeed, 
there  is  noL  wanting  evidence  to  s.iow  that  churches  of  the  Puritan  order 
existed  at  that  time  in  the  West  as  well  as  the  East.  In  the  year  553.  nine 
Biihops  of  Italy  and  Switzerland  openly  refuse  I  communion  Aviih  the 
Pope  of  I'.ome,  and  the  churches  under  iheir  care  persisted  in  their  dissent.' 

Reinerius,  himvself  a  Catholic,  has  given  these  Waldenscs  or  Poor  men 
of  Lyons,  one  of  the  best  chritian  characters,  ''Of  all  the  sects  which 
have  been  or  now  exi.st,"  .says  this  inquisitor,  "none  are  more  injurioue 
io  the  Church  (i.  e.  of  Rome)  for  three  reasons.  1.  Because  it  is  more 
ancient.  Some  aver  their  existence  from  the  lime  of  Sylvester:  others 
from  the  time  of  the  Apostles.*  -2.  Because  it  is  so  universal.  There  is 
scarcely  any  country  in  which  this.«ect  has  not  crept.  3.  Becau>e  unlike 
other  heretics  they  have  a  great  appearance  of  piety,  they  live  justly  be- 
fore men,  believe  rightly  all  tilings  concerning  God,  e  c.  A  concessioii 
like  this  combing  from  such  a  source  speaks  volumes."  They  vvere  strong- 
ly attached  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  regarded  them  as  the  only  source 
of  faith  and  religion. — Tlieir  scriptural  simplicity  and  soundness  of  be- 
lief isacknowledged  by  their  adversaries,  and  amply  confirmed  by  their 
own  auihentic  raonutnents  and  confessions  of  faith,  several  of  which  are 
printed  at  langth  in  Jones'  History  of  the  Church.— Their  purity  and  ex- 
cellence of  life  and  manners  is  conceded  by  an  ancient  inquisitor  and 
Seisselius,  archbi.shop  of  Turin,  al^o  says  :' Their  heresy  excepted, 
ihey  generally  live  a  parer  life  than  other  Christians  ' — Their  enlighten- 
ed favor,  courage,  and  zeal  is  admitted  by  Reinerius  and  he  assigns 
that  as  the  cause  of  itieir  great  increase.  'AH  of  them,'  say>:  he,  '  men 
and  women,  night  and  day,  never  cease  from  leachinjj  and  leaining'  and 

♦Dr.  Maclii-n  says  that  Remerius  himself  'even  mentions  authors  of 
note  who  make  tlieir  aniiquity  remount  to  the  aposiolic  age.  When  the 
Papists  ask  us-,  where  our  religion  was  before  Luher,  we  generally  p.n- 
s^er,  in  tkj Bible.  But  to  graUiy  their  tasie  for  tradition,  and  huraaa 
iiUJhoriiy  we  may  add  to  this  answer  an^i  in  the  vcUies  of  Piedmcni.* 


112 

he  adds  they  teach  those  whom  they  bring  over  to  their  party,  what  man- 
ner ot  persons  the  disciples  of  Christ  ought  to  be  ;  and  this  they  do  by 
the  doctrine  of  the  evangelists  and  apostles,  saying  that  those  only  are 
the  followers  of  the  aposiles  who  imitate  their  manners  of  life.  Henccj 
their  steady  oppposition  to  all  corruptions  and  anti-christian  usurpations 
of  the  Ronian  Catholic  Church.— Their  views  of  liberty  of  conscience 
were  enlightened.  'They  affirm,'  says  the  inquisitor,  'that  no  man  ought 
to  be  forcibly  compelled  in  matters  of  laith,'  in  this  particular,  and  in 
their  just  ideas  of  the  nature  and  character  of  a  church  of  Christ,  they 
were  far  in  advance  of  the  reformers,  Luiher  and  Calvin.  Their  views 
of  the  gospel  church,  as  given  by  Seisselius  and  Reineriu^,  coincide  with 
Mosheim's  account  of  the  churchfs  of  the  first  century.  It  is  also  evident 
from  the  account  their  enemies  give  of  them,  that  they  were,  and  that 
too  on  principle,  opposed  to  the  church  of  Rome,  and  to  all  national  estab- 
lished churches.  See  Encyclopedia  of  Religions  Knowledge^  Art.  Walden- 
scs,  Novaiians,  Pauliciajis,  etc.     Also  Jones'  Hist. 

Some  of  the  popish  writeis  own,  says  President  Edwards,  that  those 
people  never  submitted  to  the  church  of  Rome.  One  says.  "The  heresy 
of  the  VValdenses  isihn  oldest  herery  in  the  world.  It  is  suppo.^ed  that 
tliis  people  betook  themselves  to  this  secret  place  among  the  mountain?; 
to  hide  themselves  from  the  severity  of  (he  heathen  persecutions  which 
were  before  Con^laniine  the  Great.  And  thus  the  women  fled  into  the 
wilderness  from  the  face  of  the  serpent.  Rev.  12:  6  and  14."  (Hist,  of 
liedemp  Prd.  3  Ft.,  2:  1.).  To  this  agrees  Bkza  who  says,  "As  for  the 
Waldenses,  I  niay  be  permitted  to  call  them  the  seed  of  the  primitive 
and  purer  church." 

Mr.  Jones  who  has  given  us  the  mosr  complete  account  of  this  interest- 
ing people,  says  they  were  Antipedobnptists,  i.  e.  Baptists.  Dr.  Gill  af' 
firms  that  all  their  writings,  from  the  Noble  Lesson  in  1100,  down  to  their 
confessions  of  faith,  in  15G5,  to  be  in  favor  oi  baptism  of  believers  cnly. 
it  appears  certain  that  the  Cathari,  the  Paterines,  the  Berengarians,  the 
Arnoldists,  the  Petrobrusiar,5,.and  Kenricans,  i.  e.  the  earlier  Walden- 
ses were  anii-pedobaptists. 

The  Waldenses  and  Albigenses  do  wholly  reject  infant  baptism. — 
Daiivers'  reply  to  Wdlis,  jp.  130,  131.  For  lurther  evidence  on  this 
point  see  Dutch  Mariyrolosv,  pp.  307—320.  Also  Danvers  on  Bap.  pp. 
257,252,258,253,   267,   131,220,136. 

From  "  An  'Accoimt  of  the  Origin  of  th,^  Dutch  Baptists,'  or  Menon- 
i:e.>,  published  at  Breda,  in  1819,  by  Dr.  Ypeij,  prof  of  theology  at  Gron- 
ingen,  and  the  Rev.  J.  J.  Dermont,  chaplain  to  the  king  of  the  Nether- 
lands, learned  Pedobaptists.  With  this  account  Mr.  Ward  fills  several 
letters,  and  from  it  we  shall  make  some  extracts.  In  the  opinion  of  these 
learned  men  ''the  Menonitcsare  descended  from  the  tolerably  pure  evan- 
gelical W;ldensas,  who  were  driven  by  perGecution  into  various  coun- 
tries ;  and  who  during  the  latter  part  of  the  twelfth  century  fled  into. 
Flanders,  and  into  the  provinces  of  Holland  and  Zealand,  where  they 
lived  simple  and  exemplary  lives,  *  *  free  from  ihe  charge  of  any 
gross  immoralities,  and  professing  the  most  pure  ard  simplo  principle's 
wliich  they  exemplified  in  holy  conversation.  They  were  therefore  in^ 
existence  long  before  the  ."eform-Kl  church  of  the  Netherlands. 

"  There  were  then  two. sects  among  them,  distinguished  by  the  name 
perfect  and  imperfect.  The  greater  part  of  the  first  sect  and  the  whole  of 
the  second,  were  certainly  among  the  most  pious  Christians  the  world  ever 
saw,  and  the  worthiest  citizens  the  state  ever  had.  History  removes  every 
doubt  on  this  subject. 

"  In  the  year  1536,  their  scattered  community  obtained  a  regular  state 
of  church  order,  separale  from  ail  Dutch  and  German  Protestants.  This 


113 

advantage  was  procured  them  by  ihe  seDsible  management  of  Menno 
Simons,  who  had  iormerly  been  a  popish  priest.  This  learned,  wise,  and 
prudent  man,  was  chosen  by  ihem  as  their  leader.  He  purified  also  the 
religious  doctrines  of  the  Baptists  by  reclaiming  some  of  the  perfection- 
ists to  order  and  excluding  others. 

"  We  have  now  seen  that  the  Baptists  who  were  formerly  called  Ana- 
baptists, and  in  latter  times  Menoiiites,  were  the  original  Waldenses;  and 
who  have  long  in  the  history  of  the  church  received' the  honor  of  that  or- 
igin. On  this  account  the  Baptists  may  be  considered  as  the  only  Chris- 
tian community,  which  has  stood  since  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and  as  a 
Christian  society  which  has  pre.'^erved  pure  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel 
through  all  ages.  The  perfectly  correct  external  and  internal  economy 
of  the  Baptist  dencminaiion,  tends  to  confirm  the  truth,  disputed  by  the 
llomish  church,  that  the  reJormation  brought  about  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, was  in  the  highest  degree  necessary  ,-  and  at  the  same  time  goes  \u 
refute  the  erroneous  notion  of  the  Catholics,  that  their  communion  is  the 
most  ancient,"  [::nd  I  might  add,  the  idea  entertained  by  many  of  the 
Protestant  Pedobaptists,  that  the  Baptist  denomination  and  ihei'r  princi- 
ples are  of  recent  origin  ]     Thus  far  Dr.  Ypeij  and  Dermont. 

"  This  testimony  from  the  highest  r.fiicial  authority  in  the  Duch  Re- 
formed chrrch,  is  certainly  a  rare  instance  of  liberalitj^  towards  another 
denomination.  It  is  conceding  all  the  Menonites  or  Baptists  claim.  It 
should  be  added  that  they  have  constantly  but  politely  declined  the  salaries 
which  the  government  of  Holland  oflers  to  all  denominations  under  its 
authority." 

The  concession  of  the  learned  Mosheim  goes  to  confirm  the  statemcnis 
of  Dr.  ^'peij  aiid  Dermont,  he  says  :  'The  true  origin  of  that  sect  which 
acquired  the  denomination  of  Anabaptists  .  .  .  and  derived  that  of  Men- 
onites from  the  famous  man  to  whom  they  owe  the  greatest  part  of  their 
present  felicity,  is  hidden  in  the  depth&  of  antiquUij.  The  Menonites  are 
not  entirely  in  error  when  they  boast  of  their  descent  from  the  Walden- 
ses, Peirubrusians,  and  other  ancient  sects,  who  are  usually  considered 
witnesses  of  the  truth  in  tke  limes  of  general  darkness  and  supeis'.ition." 

The  views  of  the  Menonites  respecting  baptism  may  be  derived  from 
the  writings  of  their  learned  and  distinguished  leader  Mcnno,  who  says  : 
"After  we  have  searched  ever  so  diligently,  we  shall  find  no  other  bap- 
tism but  dipping  in  water,  which  is  acceptable  to  God  and  approved  iu 
his  word."  See  Ency.  Reli.  Knotol.  Art.  Menonites,  Mosheim,  and  Ward's 
letters. 

LYMBORCH,'Prof.  of  Divinity  in  the  University  of  Amsterdam,  says; 
"  To  speak  candidly  of  what  I  think  o(  all  the  modern  sects  of  Christians 
the  Dutch  Baptists  most  resemble  both  the  Albigenses  and  Waldenses."' 
Other  testimonies  might  be  adduced  but  this  will  sufficp. 

Pedobaptist. — My  friend,  the  abundant  evidence  you  have  furnished  to 
show,  that  the  Baptists  are  not  of  recenc  origin,  but  that  persons  holding 
their  distinguishing  sentiments  have  existed,  under  differeut  names,  in 
every  age  of  the  church,  and  that  too,  independently  of  the  Romish 
communion,  has  been  not  only  interesting,  but  very  edifying — I  also  feel 
compelled  by  a  sense  of  justice,  to  acknowledge  that  your  answers  to  my 
questions,  objections,  etc.,  have  removed  much  of  the  prejudice,  as  well 
as  the  most  prominent  objections,  I  entertained  against  your  denomina- 
tion. But  as  lam  still  ignorant  to  some  extent  of  your  prisci^fes  of  clcs<> 
communion,  Providence  permitting,  I  should  like  to  converse  with  you, 
•at  some  convenient  opportunity  on  that  subject. 

Baptist.— ^y  brother,  suppose  you  call  next  Monday  evening  if  your 
avocations  will  permit. 


CON VERS AXIOM    RESUMED 


PedoUptisL—My  friend, in  compliance  with  your  request,  1  have  called 
thJ3  evening  to  converse  with  ycu  on  the  subject  of  communion.  It  is  but' 
ju5l  to  slate  here,  that  the  evidences  you  produced  from  Scripture,  etc., 
in  the  former  part  of  this  Conversation,  to  prove  that  Baplism  is  tin  indis- 
pensable prerequisite  to  communion,  were  conclusive  to  my  mind,  and  com- 
j)letc]y  confirmed  me  in  the  belief  of  the  trtuh  ot  that  position.  And  as 
you  furnished  the  same  Scripture  evidence  to  support  the  sentiment,  thai 
iaiih  is  an  indispetiSibk  pre  iminary  \o  baptism,  1  feel  myself  likewise  con- 
strained by  evidence  and  conscience,  to  admit  the  truth  of  this  position. 
I  also  coincide  with  you  in  the  belief,  that  baplism  is  an  essential  pre- 
requisite to  church-membersnip.  But  notwithstanding  all  this,  ii  appears 
to  me  that  there  is  something  wrong  about  i\\\scLo$e  covimunio)i.  Now, 
my  brother,  can  you  inlorm  me  what  that  is. 

Baptist. — I  am  very  willing  to  acknov/ledge,  that  there  is  something 
wrong  about  this  close  communion,  as  you  term  it.  But  are  the  Baptists 
wrong  in  iliis  matierl  Ii  so,  then  it  must  either  be  in  their  principles, 
or  their  practice,  or  in  both;  and  as  you  have  frankly  acknowledged  that 
their  principles  are  in  harmony  with  Scripture,  it  follows,  as  their  prac- 
tice is  the  carrying  out  of  those  principles,  that  if  they  are  wrung,  then 
the  Scriptures  are  equally  wrong; — a  position,  my  friend,  1  am  sure  you 
will  not  rnainiain.  But  as  the  question  still  returns;  what,  or  where  is 
;he  wrong!  In  reply  I  will  endeavor  to  specify  some  things  that  I  deem 
v/rong  in  the  Pedobaptisis.  It  is  wrong  in  Idem  to  appeal  to  the  sympa- 
thies of  community,  by  exciting  ami  keeping  up  a  continual  outcry  about 
the  close  communfcai  ol  the  Bapti>ts,  in  order  to  render  them  odious  in 
the  eyes  of  commu-nfty.  It  is  manifestly  wrong,  for  any  person  to  give 
currency  or  publicity  to  even  a  questionable  report,  calculated  to  diminish 
the  reputation  u'hich  a  man  sustains  in  community.  In  doing  this,  one 
may  be  guilty  of  pro,iagating/rti.se/i06fiJ  as  well  as  slander.  Again,  it  is 
wrong  for  any  man  to  make  another  the  object  of  ridicule,  and  in  this 
manner  prejudice  others  against  him  ;  and  tiius  impair  his  reputation,  L^ 
lessening  him  in  the  estimation  of  community.  In  (he  epistle  ol  Titus, 
"aged  women  are  cautioned  against  baing  false  accusers,  The  original 
is  still  mure  impressive.  This  infernal  disposition  of  slanderers  is 
frequently  seen  in  the  manner  in  which  they  attack  persons  most  eminent 
for  pieiy  and  uscfulne-s.  Baxter  v/as  represented  as  a  murderer,  White- 
field  as  all  that  v.'.as  vile,  Oui  Savior  as  a  glutton  and  drunkard."  Again 
the- Jews  called  him  an  impostor,  and  then  crucified  him.  The  martyrs 
weie  leprespnied  as  heretics,  before  they  were  beheaded,  or  burned' at 
ilie  s'ake.  Thiss.'irae  disposition  still  exists.  Almost  all  denominations 
of  Christians,  even  in  this  age  of  unbounricd  charity,  unite  in  applying 
the  epithet  close  communion  as  a  term  of  reproach  to  tlic  Baptist  denom- 
ination. This  corroborates  the  remark  you  made  at  the  C(mimencemenl 
(f  this  conversation,  viz:  that  the  Baptist  denomination  are  "every 
where  spoken  against."  They  are  stigmatized  and  calumniated  by  al- 
most every  sect  as  cl  <se  communionis's  ;  when  in  fact  thai  epithet  is  ro 
more^applieal-.le  to  them  than  it  is  to  ihe  Pedobaptisis.  Is  it  not  plainly 
the  design  of  those  who  raise  this  outcry  about  the  close  communion  of 
the  Baptists,  (especially  those  who  are  acquainted  wiih  iheir  principles 
and  practice,)  to  stigmatize  them,  and  in  this  manner  prejudice  ignorant 
mind'j  agiinsuhem?    How  often  dots  this  old  leaveu  ol   vile  misrepre- 


115 

sentation  sour,  prejudice,  and uisguiit  many  liberal  mind:::,  and  prevent 
them  from  making  any  tiling  like  an  impartial  examination  of  our  dis- 
tinguishing sentiments?  JJave  not  these  slanderous  reports  betn  circula- 
ted to  a  great  extent,  and  produced  too  general  au  impression,  that  \vc 
are  a  rigid,  illiberal,  se!f-ri^hteous,  and  bigoted  people?  Thus  it  seems 
that  our  op,  onent.s  in  the  absence  of  belter  arguments,  intend  to  load  us 
ccwn  with  reproach,  and  if  possible  impair  our  religious  influence  in 
community. 

Now  the  eflects  produced  by  these  unwarranted  representations  are  tru- 
ly lamentable.  It  is  an  undisguised  fact,  ihat  the  great  majority  of  young 
converts  are  unacquainted  with  ihe  sentimenis  of  the  Baptists,  and  thl* 
docirine  and  precepts  of  the  New  Testement;  and  are,  therefore,  incapa- 
ble of  drawing  the  divitling  line  between  Christian  communion  or  af- 
fection, and  Church  communion  or  fellowship.  It  is  also  well  known 
that  these  persons  regard  wi!h  feelings  of  pecnliar  affection  all  who  bear 
the  name  of  Christian.  Knov.'ing  these  facts,  Pedub^ptists  are  well 
au-are  that  nothing  will  exert  a  more  withering  influence  upon  their  af- 
fcciionate  feelings  towards  us,  tli"n  ihe  glowing  representation  that  we 
xiTC:  rigid  close  communionisls.  Hence  we  conclude,  1  heir  main  object  in 
s.  igmaiizins  u.s  with  this  offensive  epithet,  is  obviously  for  elfect.  Now 
there  are  multitudes,  who,  by  reading  the  New  Testament,  have  been 
solemnly  impressed  with  ihe  conviction,  that  believers  are  ihe  only  prop- 
er subjects,  and  immersion  tlie  only  Gospel  baptism,  who  neverUieless 
have  been  deterred  by  these  siatemen:s,  Irom  the  performance  of  their  du- 
ly. Many  of  these  persons  are  »hus  prevailed  upon  by  these  and  other 
)epresentations,  to  give  up  the  idea  of  being  immersed;  and- to  unite 
with  those  denominations,  which  are  represented  as  being  open  and  lib- 
eral in  their  communi..n  and  feelings.  It  is  in  this  mLnner,  my  friend, 
that  the  misrepresentation  of  our  viewsand  sentimenis,  produces  wrong 
impres>ions  upi  n  tendv;r  mii;ds,  and  induces  many  to  'deviate  from  the 
plain  path  of  duty,  and  to  disregard  the  monitions  of  conscience;  the  impres- 
sive example  of  our  Savior,  and  the  insiitution  of  his  own  appointment 
at  the  very  outijet  of  their  Christian  career.  Many  of  this  class  may  now 
be  found  in  every  division  of  the  Pedob;iptist  church  whoiiavs  never  "an- 
swered a  good  conscirnce"  in  this  matter;  and  consequently  will  live  in 
trouble  all  their  days,  unless  ihey  possess  moral  courage  enough  to  come 
out  and  follov/  the  dictates  ofiheir  own  consciences  and  the  phiin  direc- 
tions ot  the  M'ord  of  Gcd.  Cluery.  Does  the  observance  of  rantism 
(sprinkling)  for  bipiism  (immersion)  save  these  'persons  hij  ^Hhc  ansv:er  of 
a.  good  conscience  tutcards  God '/"  or  are  ihey  saved  d^;  t'  eiroubies  of  a  guii- 
iy  conscience?  Cn  this  subject  we  speak  fiom  exf^eiience,  and  from  fact:; 
that  have  come  withi.i  ^  ur  own  observation. —  Tiiat  the  Baptists  are  too 
deficient  in  tht  superior  grace,  c/ua Hi/— \h\s  Sup  rnd  Centre  ol  the  Chris- 
tian system,  must  be  conceded.  But  that  oiher  denominations  possess  a 
greater  share  of  ihi^  .superior,  crowning  grace,  and  that,  in  consequence  ot 
their  particular  views  ot  communion,  cannot  be  admiitcd.  For  you 
know,  my  brother,  that  with  a  sing'e  exception,  we  are  all  agreed  as  it 
respects  the  terms  of  communion. — In  addition  to  this  1  would  al-o  remark- 
that  one  of  the  peculiar  and  prominent  characteristics  of  (he  Baptist  de- 
nomination and  Clergy,  is  a  kind  and  liberal  feeling  to "n'ards  the  mem- 
bers of  other  communions.  It  is  true,  they  tenacionsly  adheie  to  what 
they  deem  thefailh,  and  order  of  the  gospel.  But  then  where  can  you  find 
a  denomination  that  is  more  willing,  or  ready  to  unite  witli  all  christians 
in  spiritnal  communion,  and  in  efforts  to  advance  the  cause  ofClirist, 
than  the  Baptists,  when  no  sacritice   of  conscience  or  duty  is  required'? 


116 

But  tiicy  are  even  traduced  because  they  are  unwilling  to  sacrifice  these. 
iSfow,  my  friend,  I  object  lo  this  course  pursued  by  many  PedobBpliatt},  a» 
unchristian.  If  we  are  wronj?,  let  them  convince  U's  of  eur  error  by 
argument,  and  not  resort  to  t/ie  clamorous  outcry  about  close  communion, 
in  order  to  prejudice  people  agninst  us.  Again  we  object  to  iheir  decry- 
ing the  ordinance  of  Bap:ism  as  a  mere  noij-essenliai,  and  then  exalting 
the  Lord's  Supper,  as  the  soul,  sum  and  subslance  of  all  Chiistian  affec- 
tion. 

PedobaptisL.—  l  must  acknowledge,  my  brother,  that  there  is  too  much 
truth  in  your  remaiks.  Yet  very  many  of  those  who  stigmatize  the 
Bapiists'as  close  communionisis,  verily  believe,  that  they  arc  as  rigid, 
ilhbcral,  and  bigoted  as  they  represent  iliem.  These  false  reports  in  cir- 
culatioti  have  so  prejudiced  their  minds  as  to  prevent  a  thorough  ex- 
amination of  your  scntinients.  Hence  their  prejudices  have  induced 
them  to  adopt  and  give  currency  lo  this  gratuitous  slander. — Now,  al- 
though these  persons'  motives  nir.y  b?  good,  siill  they  are  culpable  /or  en- 
dorsing the.«e  leports  without  a  knowledg;.'  of  the  r  truth,  theretbre  their 
conduct  ccnnot  be  justified  by  the  law  of  love. 

But  yon  mentioned  two  kinds  of  communion  or  telUnvship.  Christian 
r.nd  ( livrch.  As  this  is  a  distinction  I  never  beibre  heaid  made  1  should 
be  much  gratified  to  learn  in  what  it  consists. 

Baptist. — In  regard  to  the  di-stinction  between  Christian,  and  church 
communion,  I  would  remark  that  it  is  no  cau.se  ol  wonder  to  me  that  you 
rever  heard  of  it.  For  ii  would  >eem  by  the  conversation  of  manv  Pe- 
uobaptists,  tiiat  ihey  think  there  is,  there  cm  be  no  Christian  communion, 
besides  that  manifested  in  the  pnriicipalion  of  saints  with  each  otlier  at 
the  Lord's  table.  This  I  conceive  to  be  a  great  mistake. — Wiienever 
Christians  of  difl:erent denominations,  engage  in  onver.sation  with  each 
other^on  experimental  religion,  they  find  their  he  irtsbumin:^  within  them 
in  a  kindred  dame  of  holy  affection.  They  feel  that  ihey  have  obtdined 
like  precious  faith  ;— thai  ihey  are  children  ot  ihe  sams'kind  Father;  — 
that  their  joys — their  sorrows-their  interests — their  hopes  are  in  a  great 
measure  one.  This  love  of  the  brethren  tlie  apostle  adduces  as  evidence 
that  we  "have  pnssed  from  death  unto  life."  This  is  what  we  term 
Christian  communion  or  affection. 

But  on  the  other  han^!,  when  a  Christian  and  an  unbeliever  providen- 
tially fall  in  company  with  ea:-h  other,  and  the  subject  of  experimental 
Ti-liyion  is  introduced,  we  inslanlly  perceive,  that  there  is  no  union  of  in- 
terest, sympathy  or  feeling-,  in  short,  that  tiiere  isno  Chrisiian  fellowship 
or  a  (lection  existing  between  thei.o. 

From  this  view  of  the  subject,  we  perceive  that  faith  or  a  change  of 
l;eart  is  essential  to  Christian  communion  or  fellowship.  And  as  wc 
have  before  proved  that  Chris  ian  b  ipdsm  is  an  essential  qualification  to 
church  communion,  the  distinction  i-;  perieclly  obvious,  ^ow,  as  we  all 
practi.se  upon  the  .'■ame  principles  in  (.hurch  communion;  wherein  are 
Baptists  more  close  or  restricted  than  the  Ped^:b.ipli^ts'? 

Pcdobaptist. — My  friend,  1  am  much  pleased  with  your  views  o(  this 
subject.  The  dis'inction  y.ai  have  m;ide  between  Christian  and  Church 
fel'owsfiip,  1  think  is  i^narked  ;  nd  judicious.     Hence  it  appears thit 

Friih  is  a  2.'?'^^t'5''^i'*^i^s  to  Chrisiian  communion .^and  also  to  baptism;, 
and  that 

Vyc\\)\.\sm  \%  ?i  prerequisite  to  Church  communion,  and  also  to  church 
membership. 

Now,  my  friend,  since  your  sentiments  and  mine  so  perfectly  coincide 
on  the  irodc,  and  subjects  of  baptism,  I  feel  conscious  thai  I  shall  not  h'i 


117 

nbleiodo  justice  to  the  Pedobaptist  side  oC  this  question.  And  8s 
I  am  desirous  of  hearing  itdiscussed  I  wou  d  introduce  lo you  my  Presby- 
terian brother,  (who  has  been  listenins:  for  some  time  to  our  conversaiion) 
and  by  the  way  [would  remarlc  that  he  is  a  warm  advocate  for  sprink- 
ling and  Pedubaptism.  I  would  like  therefore  to  hear  you  converse  vviiii 
him  on  ihe  subject  a  short  lime. 

Presbyter lai. —  My  brother,  I  have  been  listening  to  your  conversa- 
tion with  much  interest;  and  I  concur  with  you  bjth,  ihat  bipti.sm  is  a 
prerequisite  to  communion,  and  to  church-membersliip.  But  why,  my 
brother,  do  your  denomination  still  cling  to  close  communion"? 

Baptist.— My  friend,  you  speak  as  though^  close  or  restricied  commu- 
nion is  peculiar  to  us  as  a  denomination.  If  this  is  the  case,  y<e  are  not 
aware  of  the  fact.— If  I  mistake  not,  you  said  that  you  '^regarded  baptism 
as  a  prerequisiie  to  communion."  If  so,  I  suppose  you  restrict  your  com- 
munion to  those  whom  you  deem  baptized. 

Presbyterian. — Most  certainl3^  You  do  not  suppose  that  we  commune 
with  unbipiized  persons  I 

i?<2;?^t5/.— Suppose  that  several  pious  Q.uakers,  who  b?lieve  that  they 
have  been  baptized  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  Vvho  deem  nothing  else  Gos- 
pel baptism,  should  so  far  depart  from  their  order,  as  to  requesi  admis- 
sion to  the  Lord's  uible ;  would  you,  could  you  grant  their  request'? 

Presbyterian. — We  could  not  grant  th;ir  request. — Their  opinion,  or 
belief  that  they  have  been  baptized,  can  never  be  a  rule  for  our  conduct. 
As  "eveiy  one  must  give  an  account  of  himself  unto  God,"  v»'e  must  act 
agreeably  to  the  diet  les  oi  our  own  consciences,  and  what  ice  deem  the 
plain  directions  of  tlie  word  of  God.  But  then,  my  friend,  v.hy  do  you 
refuse  to  commune  with  usi 

-S/^T/iisf.  — For  the  same  reason  precisely,  that  you  refuse  to  commun?; 
with  ine  pious  Quakers,  i.  e.  because  we  verily  believe  you  are  not  bap- 
tized. We  believe,  as  peculiar  to  us,  that  nothing  constitutes  Christian 
baptism  but  the  immersion  of  a  professed  believer.— i\gain  we  both  prac- 
tise on  precisely  the  same  principles.  Hence,  if  we  are  close  commu- 
nionisis,so  are  you.  You  reserve  to  yousclves  the  inalienable  right  ot 
judging  who  is,  or  who  is  not  baptized.     We  do  the  same. 

Presi'y/enav. — This  looks  all  very  lair ;  but  then  it  is  a  fact  that  we 
commune  wi,h  Con<jregatiunalists,  Episcopalians,  Methodists,  etc.,  and 
you  will  commune  with  none  of  them.  Is  it  not  self-evident  then,  that 
we  are  more  libera!  and  open  in  our  communion  than  you  are'? 

Baptist. — In  principle  I  think  not.  The  obvious  reason  why  you  com- 
mune with  all  these  persons  is,  because  you  deem  them  baptized.  Did 
ice  believe  the  same  we  should  commune' with  them  ;  but  we  do  not,  after 
a  thorough  examination  of  the  subject,  believe  that  pouring  or 
sprinkling  is  Scriptural  baptism.  For  that  reason  we  cannot  commune 
with  those  denominations.  Now  if  there  is  any  thing  in  which  we  are 
more  restricted  than  you,  it  is  in  baptism, — not  in  communion.  For  un- 
less we  labor  under  a  mistake,  your  denomination  are  more  restricted  in 
their  communion,  than  the  Baptists. 

Presbyterian  — I  would  like  to  know  how  you  prove  this  assertion. 

Baptist.  — Our  denomination  commune  with  all  whom  they  baptize, 
who  do  not  forfeit  this  privilege  by  a  disorderly  walk  ;  but  the  Pedobap- 
tistsareso  much  more  restricted  in  their  communion,  than  the  Baptists, 
that  tney  baptize  very  many  whom  they  regard  as  fit  recipients  of  the  rite; 
and  then  debar  thrm  from  their  communion  table,  without  preferring  one 
charge  against  them  for  apostacy,  or  disorderly  conduct ;  or  without  even 
J>eing  able  to  point  out  any  particular   change  in   their   character  since 


lis 

llieii  baptism.  Does  not  tliis  prove  conclusively,  that  Pidobaptists  are 
more  restricted  in  their  connnunion  than  the  Baptists'? 

J-'rcsbylcrian.--My  brother,  what  evidence  have  you  to  sr.stain  the  af- 
firmation, that  the  Pedobaptists  baptize  those  with  whom  they  will  not 
commune? 

Baj'iisl. — Your  denomination  wiih  other  Pedobaptists  baptize  the  chil- 
dren of  believing  parents,  whom  they  regard  as  gospel  isubjecis  of  that 
initiatory  rite,  and  then  shot  ihem  cut  from  the  communiontable.  By 
what  authority  do  you  admit  them  to  the  first  gospel  sacrament,  on  the 
faiili  of  their  parents,  and  then  refuse  them  admission  to  the  other.* 

Prcshykrian. —  My  friend,  the  Bible  requires  that  communica.nt?  should 
be  able  to  "discern  the  Lord's  body,"  and  to  ''examine"  themselves  before 
they  "eat  ofthai  bread  anddrinkof  thai  cup."  Hence  it  is  plain  that  as 
infants  are  incapable  of  this,  they  have  no  right  to  be  admitted  to  this  sac- 
rament. 

Bapt=^i.—T\\e  Bible  too,  as  we  have  plainly  shown,  requires  believers 
only  to  be  baptized.  And  as  infants  are  inc;ipab!e  ol  exercising  failh, 
they  of  course  are  excluded  from  this  rile. t     Fof    they    must  be  able   to 

*  Dr.  John  Edwards  says:  "  Infant  communion  was  a  catholic  (univer- 
sal) doctrine, — herein  all  the  Fathers  agreed."  Mosheim  .says  "that  the 
sacred  supper  was  in  this  [the  second]  century  given  to  infants."  Cyp- 
rian, who  was  born  at  the  close  of  the  second,  or  beginning  ofthe  third 
century,  alludes  to  the  practice  of  inlant  communion  as  a  thing  well 
known  in  his  time."  "The  majority  of  nomin  il  Christian  churches, 
w^hichiiphold  infant  baptism,  plead  alike  for  infant  communion  to  this 
very  day.  The  Greek  Churcli,  the  Armenians  and  Abassens,  the  Maron- 
ites,  Muscovites  and  Cophti.  who  as  Dr.  Wall  observes,  constitute  the 
'biggest  half  of  Christendom,'  are  as  tenacious  for  the  application  of  the 
one^ordinance  asthe  other  to  infant  subjects."  Where  is  tiiere  any  in- 
congruity in  this?  What  evidence  can  be  urged  to  support  one  of  these 
ordinances,  that  cannot  with  the  same  propriety  be  urged  in  'he  defence 
ofthe  other.  If  one  was  in  the  church  at  the  close  of  the  second  century, 
so  was  the  other.  If  one  v>'as  considered  necessary  to  salvation,  so  was 
the  other.  If  one  is  a  gospel  ordinance,  so  is  the  other.  If  there  isany 
impropriety  in  administering  the  eucharist  to  infants,  there  must  be  the 
s?ane  impropriety  in  administering  to  them  baptism.  Under  the  old 
economy,  circumcision  and  the  passover  were  intimately  connected. — 
Venema  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History  says:  "  In  the  ancient  churth  these 
two  sacraments  in  respect  to  the  subjects,  were  never  separated  the  one 
J'rom  the  other.'' 

■\  Milton  the  celebrated  author  of  Paradise  Lost  says,  in  his  "Christian 
Doctrine,"  "Under  the  gospel,  the  first  of  the  sacraments  commonly 
so  called  is  baptism,  wherein  the  bodies  of  believers  who  engage  ihern- 
selves  to  newness  of  life  are  immersed  in  running  water  [then  there 
were  no  baptisteries]  to  signify  their  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
their  union  with  Christ  in'hisdealh,  burial,  and  resurrection. 

"  'From  thisstatement  he  argues:'  Hence  it  lollows  (hat  infants  are  not 
tube  baptized,  inasmuch  as  they  are  incompetent  to  receive  instruction, 
or  to  believe,  or  to  enter  into  covenant,  or  answer  for  themselves,  or  even 
to  hear  the  word.  For  how  can  infants  who  understand  not  the  word,  be 
purified  thereby,  any  more  than  adults  can  receive  edification  by  hearing 
an  unknown  language?  For  it  is  not  that  outward  baptism,  which  purifies 
only  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  which  saves  us,  itt/  the  ansicer  of  a  good  con- 
science, as  Peter  testifies ;  of  which  infants  are  incapable.  Besides  baptism 


fl9 

onderstand,  that  when  they  "  have  been  baptized  mto  Christ,'*  that  they 
•'have  pill  on  Christ."  Tha'  is,  they  have  invested  themselves  with  the 
di^tin^uishingf  robe  of  Christian  profession;  (such  is  the  idea  conveyed 
by  the  original  term  enc'dusasi/ie,y  and  henceforth  they  are  to  walk  "  in 
newness  of  lite.'"* 

Presbyteriaii: — The  qualifications  you  speak  of,  applies  to  adults,  not 
to  infants. 

Baptist. — So  do  the  qualifications  you  require  for  communion,  apply 
(0  aduhs,  noi  to  infints. 

Presb^yterian. — My  friend,  I  presume  you  are  aware  that  our  denomi- 
nniion  are  more  liber;.!  in  their  views,  and  pr;:ctice  of  infant  baptism 
than  f  rmerly.  A  man  o  a  family  may  now  be  a  member  cf  our  cliureh 
and  observe  ihisgospel  ordinance,  in  bavins;  his  children  sprinkled  or 
nor,  as  he  please-.  Thus  you  see  how  liberal  we  are  in  our  b:iptisnf>.-- 
And  again,  we  cheerfully  invite^ow,  with  all  other  evangelical  Christians, 
to  commune  »'ith  un  ;(t  the  Lords  I.  ble.  But  you  will  neiihei  accept  our 
invitation,  nor  invite  us  to  c:)mraune  with  you:  is  it  not  pluin  then,  that, 
you  are  truly  the  close covivnini  nist^? 

Baptist.-  My  tiiend,  infant  baptism  (sprinkling)  has  probably  been  the 
legitimate  cau>e  of  much  uneasim  ss  and  trouble  in  your  ciiurches.  This 
is  unquestionably  the  reason,  why  you  are  so  liberal  as  not  to  insist  upon 
it  as  a  positive  duty.  But  if  it  is  a  i:ospel  ordinmce  what  right  haveyou  to 
suffer  your  members  to  live  in  the  total  neglect  of  it.  The  concessions 
of  Or.  Woods  and  P  of.  Stuirt,  and  the  increasing  neglect  of  this  rite 
among  Pedobiptist  churches,  indicate  that  the  time  is  not  far  distant, 
when  they  will  cease  to  practise  this  unscriptural  ceremony.  Tie  prac- 
tice of  believers'  baptism  (i.  e.  immersion)  is  becoming  more  and  more 
frequent  ;!moug  all  Pedobiiptists.  Thus  vie  may  see  that  a  gradual  rev- 
olution is  in  pro2:ress  which  will  eventu;illy  demolish  thebarrier  that  now 
.separates  us.  Now,  we  affection  tely  invite  you  as  Chiis;ians.  lo demol- 
ish this  barrier,  by  communing  wi'li  us,  our  Savior,  tiie  apostolical  cDd 
primitive  Christians,  fortlie  first  two  centtiiies,  in  the  subjects,  and  mode 
of  baptism;  and  with  the  Christian  woild,f)r  1300  years,  in  tlie  observ- 
ance of  the  primitive  rite  of  baptism.  And  then  we  will  m(,>st  cheerfully 
accept  yonr  invitation  to  unite  with  you,  in  the  participation  of  i lie  Lord  s 
Supper.  Now,  my  denr  brotlier,  if  you  ate  unwilling  to  do  «his,  I  ask 
you,  I  ask  the  world,  who  are  emphatically  the  close  ctmmumonisls? 

is  not  nierrly  aoDvenai.t,  i  oiitainirig  a  stipulutioii  on  one  site,  with  a  .-orre.-sf.onding 
engag'ineiit  on  tlie  o  tier,  which  in  th.-  casf  of  .in  =nfaiit  i.s  iinp.issi'ile  ;  but  i  i".  atso  a 
vow,  atiil  a^  8  ich  ci.n  neither  be  pronounced  t>y  inf.nts,  nor  he  reqiiir  d  of  tii  m.  It  is 
remarkable  to  what  futile  arguments  those  divines  tiave  recourse  to,  who  ra;.intaln  the 
contrary  opinion^." 

*  Baptists  coniin'int>  with  those  whom  they  t  aptize.  uril -ss  in  tli-ir  vicwthry  depart 
from  "apiistoli  •.  dortrine  r.nd  ft  Howship."  But  tiie  IVd  bnptisTs  shut  out  from  the 
eoiimiuniou  nuiny  wh  tm  th:'y  professelly  b.ipt  ze,  ani  e\en  thtrir  children  they  subject 
to  the  same  ireatin  nt.     Is  not  this  clo^^e  c(  mnii  ni<iii  ? 

The  l'resbyt-r  =  :;n  Cnnf  s-ion  of  Faith,  p.  "273,  says:  "A  parti  ular  church  cnpsist* 
of  a  numlier  of  piores?  iig  Clirsri;.iis.  with  tli  ir  otfsprin»,  voluntarily  assoiatfd  to- 
ge  her  for  divin,-  wor.-iii:>,  ani  g()<ll>  livirg."  ^\jr=  in,  p;  ire  327,  "Ch  Idren  born  v/itbija 
the  pale  of  the  visible  -bur -h.  ^•nll  !  dicated  U>  Go  I  i".  B  .ptism,  ar-.  un  ler  th^  iiispee- 
lion  and  £ov;  rnmcnt  cif  th  ^  <hur..h, — ami  whoa  they  coine  to  years  of  discrr  ti'>ni  if 
tliey  he  free  from  s-:iniia',  so'?er  an'i  stead) ,  and  have  sufficient  knowledge  to  di'-cera 
the  Lord's  body,  tlie.y  •  ught  io  le  informed  it  is  tlielr  duty  and  privilege;  to  come  to  the 
Lor  i's  Suppf-r." 

QnrsTKi.N  62  (Targp  CHte.h'SJS:.)     *'\Vhnt  is  the  visible  churh  ?" 

Answkh.  "The  visible (hfrh  is  ;i  so  ifty  made  up  «  f  ili  su'  h  re,  in  all  ages  and 
places  of  th^  world,  do  profess  the  trtie  religion,  and    ,t  thi  ir  cLildrei-." 

Porter  on  Cliridiian  Baptism,  p.  108,  Bays:  "  Baptized  children  are  merahere  of  the 
^eible  church." 


130 

Presbyterian. — If  you  will  not  commune  uith  us  at  the  Lord's  tab^e, 
why  should  we  commune  with  you  in  your  bapusml 

BaplisL  — We  have  shown  that  we  could  not  commune  with  you,  with- 
out sacrificing  our  principles:  Besides,  baptism  comes  first,  in  the  divine 
commission  ;  (;.nd  if  we  were  t^judge  from  the  number  of  times  it  is  men- 
tioned in  tlie  New  Testament,  we  must  conclude,  to  say  the  lenst,  that  it 
is  of  as  mucii  importance,  as  the  Lord's  Supper;)  hence  the  reason  is  ob- 
vious, whv  you  should  first  commune  wiih  us  in  tl.is  ordinance.  Then 
we  can  travel  on  M'iih  you  in  the  highway  cast  up  by  Zion's  King,  for 
the  ransomed  to  walk  in  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  But,  my  friend;  if  7/0?^,,  in 
direct  violation  of  the  great  law  of  the  commission,  and  contrary  to  apos- 
tolic exarriple,  refuse  to  commune  with  us  and  the  Christian  world  for 
centuries,  in  tin's  firs:  gospel  ordinance,  (baptism)  when  you  can  do  it, 
withoui  violating  either  law,  principle,  or  conscience;  is  it  not  sell-evi- 
dent, that' you  alone  are  responsible  for  all  the  evils  of  close  communionl 
Again,  if  you  cannot  commune  with  its  and  the  apostles  in  the  primitive 
observance  of  the  first  of  the  gospel  ordinances,  how  can  you  expect  us 
to  commune  with  ?/oit  in  the  second  ;  or,  in  other  words,  if  you  will  not 
commune  with  us  in  our  strict  adherence  to  apnslolical example .  how  can 
you  expect  us  to  comnaune  with  ■  oii  in    deviation    from  //.df  example. 

Presbijkrian. — My  brother,  the  apostles  celebrated  the  Lori's  Supper, 
and  we,  in  imitalion  of  their  example,  do  the  same.  Hence  v^  e  do  not  ask 
you  to  commune  with  us,  in  deviation  from  apostolic  example,  but  in  our 
compliance  with  it. 

Ba.pt  St.— My  friend,  it  is  generally  admitted  that  the  Apostles  and 
primitive  Christians  observed  the  rite  of  baptism,  i.  e.  immersion,  prior 
to  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  But  as  you  have  not  lollowed 
their  examplein  this  respect,  we  could  not  in  co  :  pliance  with  your  re- 
qiaest  unite  with  you  in  the  celebration  of  this  ordinance.  Now  it  is  a  fact, 
that  what  constitutes  the  principal  barrier,  that  divides  the  Baptist  and 
Protesinnt  Pedobaptist  denominations  a;  d  communions,  is  the  substitu- 
tion of  infant  and  adult  rantism  (spniikMng)  for  believers  baptism  (immer- 
sion.) This  paiiition  wall  was  erected  by  Pedobaplists,  and  they  gener- 
ally lend  all  their  influence  to  sustain  and  perpetuate  it. 

Presbyietian. — How,  my  friend, do  you  make  it  appear  that  the  Pedo- 
baptists  were  the  originators  of  the  barrier,  which  separates  the  Baptist 
and  Pe.lobap'ist  denominations'? 

Baptist.  My  brother,  from  what  we  have  already  said,  it  is  evident, 
that  if  all  Christians  could  cometoa  perfect  agreement,  as  it  regards  the 
mode,  and  subjects  of  baptism,  there  would  be,  there  could  be  nothing  in 
the  ordiiiance  of  communion,  about  which  they  could  be  divided.  The 
Christian  church  commenced  with  the  practice  of  baptizing  (i.  e.  immer- 
sing) believers;  and  she  was  bound  by  the  commission,  and  apostolic 
example  10  continue  in  this  practice.  Now,  as  this  is  apostolic  grotmd,  it 
js  plain  that  here  we  ought  all  to  meet  and  unite  ;  and  it  is  worthy  of  re- 
mark too,  that  so  long  as  Christians  occupied  this  ground,  there  was  no 
divisions  in  the  church.  But  when  the  church  left  this  apostolic  ground, 
and  substituted  pouring,  sprinkling,  and  infant  baptism  lor  the  ordin- 
ance of  bi^lievers  baptism,  it  produced  contention  and  division  among  the 
true  disciples  ot  Christ,  Now,  if  this  aberration  from  apostolic  practice, 
was  the  original  cause  of  these  divisions,  it  is  manifest,  that  it  must  still 
be  the  cau-^c  Hence,  it  is  obvious,  that  those,  and  those  only,  who  lend 
their  influence,  to  sustain  and  perpetuate  the  cause  of  these  div  sions 
.irnong  Christians,  are  responsible  for  all  the  evils  that  grow  out  of  them. 

Presbyterian. — It  is  rather  hard  I  think  for  you  to  throw  the  origin  of 


121 

=.he  conientions  aiid  divisions  of  ihe  church  upon  Pedobaptists;  while 
tliey  stand  read}'  lo  commune  with  you.  And  besides  ;  we  sincerel)',  and 
tionscienciously  belie v^e  that  ue  have  been  baptizod,  and  therefore  deem 
ourselves  proper  subjects  for  admission  to  the  communion  table. 

Baptist.— My  friend,  we  "as  sincerely  and  couscienciously  believe 
that  you  have  not  been  baptized;"  and  therefore  •' deem  you  mproper 
subjects  for  admission  to  the  ommunion,''  Now  does  consciencious 
sincerity  prove  that  a  man  is  in  the  right'?  If  so,  then  we  are  both  right; 
tliough  diametrically  opposed  to  each  other  in  our  views  ot  baptism. — 
Let  us  examine  this  subject :  Suppose  two  men  should  meet  each  other 
oii  the  road,  within  30  miles  of  New  York,  both  sincerely  believing  that 
they  were  bound  direct  to  the  city,  yet  travelling  in  opposite  directions. 
I  ask,  would  tlieir  Sincerity 'rove  them  both  rightl  Is  it  not  evident 
that  one  of  them  must  be  wrong'?  Take  an  illustration  from  Scripture: 
Paul  was  equally  sincere  before,  and  after  his  conversion;  but  did  his  sjn- 
-cerity  prove  him  right  in  both  these  cases.  The  disciples  would  not  ad- 
mit this;  for  when  he  'essayed  to  join  himself  to  them,"  they  would  not 
receive  him  till  they  were  convinced  that  he  was  right  in  action,  as  well 
as  in  sincerity.— Finally,  if  you  sincerely  believe  that  you  have  been 
baptized,  I  as  sinceiely  believe  that  you  have  not  been  baptized.  Now, 
if  your  sincerity  proves  your  baptism  valid,  lor  the  same  re;:son  my  sin- 
cerity proves  it  invalid.     What,  my  iriend,  is  this  argument  worth'? 

Presbijterian. — Eiiiier  something  or  nothing.  But  who  is  lo  decide  in 
this  case  what  is  baptism? 

Baptist.— Why,  either  the  candidate,  or  the  church.— If  the  candidate 
alone  is  to  decide  of  the  validity  ofhis  own  baptism,  and  of  his  qualifica- 
tions for  church-membership  and  church  communion,  then  for  the  same 
reason,  he  alone  may  decide  of  his  qualifications  for  any  office  in  the 
church.  II  this  right  be  conceded  to  the  candidate,  of  what  use  is  the 
-church'?  For  what  was  it  constituted^* — That  each  member  should  con- 
trol it  according  to  his  own  caprice'?  What  would  be  the  result  if  such 
a  principle  we:e  conceded  and  carried  out  in  practice'?  It  can  but  be 
evident  that  the  Church  must  be  the  judge;  and  in  deciding  who  is  eligi- 
Itie  lor  admission  lo  the  ciiurch  or  communion,  she  must  be  governed  by 
the  scriptural  terms  of  admission.  These  may  be  learned  fiom  the  Chris- 
tian commission,  Alatt.  28:  18—20,  and  the  practice  of  the  apostles. 

Presbyterian. — Can  you  inform  me,  ray  brother,  what  was  the  practice 
of  the  apostles  1 

Baptist. —  We  have  before  shewn,  though  you  was  not  present,  that 
they  invariably  /olio wed  their  commission,  which  requires  faith  before 
baptism,  and  baptism  before  churcii  communion,  etc.  See  Acts  2:  41,  42; 
8:  12;  9;  18;  10:  48;  16:  15,  33.  This  was  their  uniform  practice,  and  there 
is  not  a  solitary  instance  on  record,  of  their  having  deviated  from  it.  Now, 
the  apostles  require  us  to  follow  them,  as  they  followed  Christ;  to  walk 
as  we  have  tliem  ibr  an  ensample;  to  keep  the  ordinances  as  they  hate 
delivered  them  to  vs;  and  to  withdrav/  ourselves  fron-i  every  brother  that 
walks  disorderly,  and  not  according  to  the  tradition  which  we  hare  received 

*  I  believe  with  Dr.  Owen,  that  the  end  and  object  which  Christ  had  in  view,  in 
constituting  and  (  ontinuing  his  church  on  earth,  was  to  transmit  tVom  age  to  age  the 
juirity  of  his  worship.  "For,"  says  he,  "those  churches  do  exceedingly  mistake  their 
duty,' and  the  very  end  of  their  being,  which  make  it  not  their  principal  business  to 
take  care  of  the  due  celebration  of  the  \a  orship  whicli  the  Lord  Christ  hath  appoint- 
ed." Hence  if  we  would  accomplish  this  desirable  object,  we  see  the  importance  of 
strictly  adhering  to  the  Divine  directions,  in  the  admission  of  members  to  the  church, 
and  to  its  ordinancee. 


122 

/row,  them.  And  they  declare  in  positive  terma,  that  *' they  received  of 
the  Lord  what  ihoy  deliv.^red  to  th.i  church,"  J  Cor.  11.  1,2;  Phil.  3:  17; 
I  Cor.  4:  16,  17;  Col.  2:  5—8;  2  Thess.  3:  6;  2:  15.  Now,  rny  brother, 
it  id  evident,  iVoin  these  Kcripture  facta,  that  the  t  hurch  is  authorized  by 
apostolic  example  to  admit  iiimiersed  bnlievers  into  the  church  and  to  the 
communion,  but  any  devialjon  irom  this  would  be  a  violation  of  gospel 
order.  My  brotiier,  suppose  that  a  per  on,  holding,  in  your  view,  very 
erroneous  sentiments,  should  desire  to  unite  with  your  church,  would  you 
admit  him? 

Preibytenan. — It  would  not  answer,  my  friend,  for  us  to  admit  a  man 
10  membership  in  the  church  with  very  erroneous  sentiments;  or  merely 
because  he  thinks  he  po^ses^es  the  requisi  e  qualificaiiuns  for  admission. 
Were  we  to  receive  members  on  this  principle,  they  might  eventually 
become  tlie  majority  in  the  ciiurch,  and  control  the  whole  of  is  affairs, 
and  govern  it  as  they  please  ;  or  it  they  remain  the  minority  they  might 
ereite  divisions  and  contentions  without  end. 

Baptist.  -  But  where,  my  brother,  is  ihe  consisttncy  in  granting  a  per- 
son's fn-e  admission  to  all  the  privileges  ot'the  church,  without  even  sub- 
jecting them  to  either  its  burdens,  or  its  discipline'?  If  it  is  consistent,  to 
admit  them  to  the  communion  table,  then  it  is  equally  as  consistent,  to  ad- 
rait  them  to  regular  m€mber.-.hip  in  tlje  church.  For  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  a  cJmrck  ordinance,  (1  Cor.  11-^24;)  and  consequently  should  be  ad- 
ministered to  mme  but  church-members.  Hence  there  is  a  manifest  in- 
consistency in  Ccjrryin?  these  elements  out  of  the  church. 

But  then  1  perceive  that  you  are  not  in  lavor  of  unrestricted  commu- 
nion ;  for  this  cannot  exist,  so  long  as  the  different  denominations  adhere 
to  their  distinguishing  sentiments,  or  maintain  discipline  in  their  respec- 
tive churches,  or  require  the  adoption  of  their  articleb  of  faith  for  ad- 
mission to  their  church. 

Presbyterian.—  How,  my  brother,  do  you  make  it  out,  that  we  aie  not 
in  favor  of  iree  communion,  when  we  cheerfully  invite  you  all  to  the 
Lard's  table? 

Bapt  St. — Suppose  that  a  candidate  should  be  refused  admission  into 
your  church,  because  he  could  notadoptyour  articles  of  faiih,  would  not 
this  be  establishing  c/o5e  or  restricted  communionl  Again  suppose  that 
one  of  your  ministers  should  so  far  depart  from  your  iaith  and  prac- 
tice, as  to  become  a  Baptist  in  the  mode  atid  subjects  of  baptism,  and 
should  still  remain  a  minister  in  yuurcliurch,  and  continue  to  preach  what 
he  deemed  truth,  and  practice  accordingly;  would  your  churches,  could 
they  fellowship  him  in  this  course?  Must  they  not  exclutle  him,  however 
distinguished  ha  may  be  for  holiness  or  success,  or  else  dispense  with  a 
pert  of  their  crefd?  And  i'  they  exclude  him  from  the  church,  would  not 
that  be  restricted  communion? 

Presbyterian. — Most  certainly!  But  suppose  we  were  so  far  to  dispense 
with  our  creed,  as  to  retain  the  offender?  Tliis  surely  would  not  be  close 
communion. 

Baptist. — My  .friend,  if  your  church  were  to  retain  this  minister,  would 
she  no:  retain  in  lier  bosom  the  very  elements  of  discord  and  disunion? 
Can  "a  house  divided  against  itself  stand?"'  "Can  two  walk  together, 
except  they  be  agreed?"  And  if  you  could  dispense  with  this  part  of  your 
creed,  and  fellowship  this  minister,  I  see  no  reason  why  you  may  not  with 
the  same  propriety,  unite  with  the  Baptist  Church  and  fellowship  them. 
Nothing  would  hinder  but  your  mode  ol'  church  government;  and  as  that 
does  not  prevent  your  members  from  uniting  with,  nor  your  ministers  from 


123 

becoming  pastors  of  Congregational  churches,  that  surely  could  present 
no  serious  obstacle. 

Presbyteritm — I  see  plainly,  my  brother,  that  there  would  be  a  glaring 
inconsistency  in  retaining  this  minister.  The  very  principle  which  we 
must  adopt  to  do  it,  would  it  applied  eventually  overthrow  our  denomina- 
tion. 

Baptist. — My  friend,  be  cautious  in  avoiding  this  inconsistency,  that 
you  do  not  involve  yourself  in  another.  Indeed,  the  very  principles  of 
church  communion,  adopted  by  Pedobaptists,  irequently  involve  them  in 
the  most  gross  inconsistencies. 

Presbyteruui. — How  do  you  make  good  that  statement? 

Baptist. — My  friend,  Pedobaptists  and  mixed  communion  Baptists,  not 
only  uniformly  invite  to  their  coiiiuiunion  tliose  whom  they  would  exclude,  if  they 
were  members  of  their  church,  but  almost  invariably  censure  the  Baptists  because  they 
will  not  do  th.!  same.  As  an  illustration,  let  us  suppose,  that  it  has  become  evident 
to  your  church,  that  the  minister  I  instanced  must  be  excluded.  He  pleads  in  justifi- 
cation of  his  course,  that  he  can  find  nothing  in  the  Bible  to  sanction  either  infant  or 
adult  sprinkling,  and  that  two  of  your  most  distinguished  divines,  John  Calvin,  the 
founder  of  your  church,  and  Dr.  Campbell,  the  learned  transla'or  of  the  four  Gospels, 
tieclare  unequivocally,  that  "the  word  baptizo  signifies  to  immerse,  both  in  sacred  and 
classical  authors,"  and  Calvin  adds,  that  "it  is  certain  that  immersion  was  practised  by 
theaniiieni  church,"  and  that  "  Christ  requires  teaching  before  baptism,  and  will  have 
believers  only  adiuitled  to  baptism,"  etc.;  yet  nought  will  avail,  and  they  exclude  him. 
Suppose  now  that  this  minister  unites  with  the  Baptists.  This  simple  act,  without 
any  change  of  sentiinent,  qualifies  him  for  communion  at  the  Lord's  table;  and  be- 
cause he  will  not  unite  with  the  very  church  that  excluded  him,  in  the  observance  of 
this  ordinance,  he  is  accused  of  being  a  bigoted  close  communionist — of  "breaking 
the  church  in  pieces,  by  contending  for  rites  and  forms,"  and  non-essentials,  etc. 

Again,  suppose  (hat  this  excluded  minister,  instead  of  uniting  with  the  regular  Bap- 
tists, should  uniie  with  th>^ 'Freewill  [mixed  communion]  Baptists.' he  could  then  take 
his  seat  at  the.  communion  table  with  the  very  church  that  excluded  hun.  In  this  case, 
your  church  would  commune  with  their  excluded  members.  CaH  thev  do  this  with 
any  propriety? 

Now,  my  friend,  it  is  evident,  from  what  has  already  been  said,  that  if  a  minister  or 
other  member  be  expelled  from  any  diviston  of  the  Protestant  Pedobaptist  church,  for 
holding  and  promulgating  doctrines  or  sentiments  which  the  church  deem  erroneous, 
yet,  by  connecting  himself  with  a  chiwch  that  is  syst-.-maticallN  organized,  and  actively 
engaged  in  disseminating  the  very  same  doctrines  and  sentiments  for  which  be  was 
excluded,  (be  that  church  E[)iscopalian,  Methodist,  Presbyterian,  Freewill  Baptist, 
etc.)  he  immediately  becomes  qualified,  by  this  act,  to  return  and  unite  in  a  joint-par- 
ticipation of  the  Lord's  Supper,  with  the  very  church  that  excluded  him  Hence,  it  is 
obvious,  that  the  terms  of  communion  adopted  by  Pedobaptists  may  oblige  them  to 
commune  to-day  with  those  whom  they  excluded  yesterday.  What,  I  would  ask, 
can  b^  more  palpably  absurd,  or  grossly  inconsistent  than  this?  How  can  your  de- 
nomination unite  in  the  church  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  with  those  of  other 
denominations  whom  you  would  exclude,  if  they  were  members  of  your  denomina- 
tion? Or,  in  other  words,  how  can  you  fellowship  that  conduct  in  the  members  of 
other  denominations,  which  you  cannot  fellowship  in  your  own?  Is  error  in  other 
denominations  less  suilul  or  offensive  than  in  your  own?  Or  is  its  turpitude  removed 
by  systematic  organization  carried  into  effective  operation,  for  its  universal  promul- 
gation? 

Presbyterian. — Having  never  taken  this  view  of  the  subject  before,  I  am 
really  surprised  to  imd  that  our  principles  of  communion,  when  carried 
out  in  practice,  are  apparently  marked  with  such  gioss  inconsistency. 
Indeed,  my  brother,  your  illustrations  have  so  shaken  my  confidence  in  the 
belief,  that  the  terms  of  our  communion  are  scriptural,  that  I  feel  myself 
really  unprepared  to  give  an  answer  to  your  inquiries;  and  besides,  my  bus- 
iness is  so  urgent,  that  I  am  under  the  necessity  of  leaving. 

[Bi other  T.  enters  just  as  Brother  P.  is  departing.'] 

Why,  really,  here  comes  our  good  Methodist  brother  Thomas,  who  by 
the  way  has  been  immersed,  and  is  also  a  strenuous  advocate  Ibr  opec 
'  communion;  he  I  presume  will  taka  my  place. 


124 

•BaptisL-^Be  seated,  my  brother.  My  friend  P,  and  I  have  been  conveTs- 
ing  on  the  subject  of  open  and  restricted  cliurch  communion. 

Metkodist  — My  brother,  I  have  often  desired  to  converse  with  you  on 
this  same  subject,  but  thought  it  would  appear  rather  impertinent  in  me  to 
introduce  it.  But  as  this  seems  to  be  a  lavorable  opportunity,  I  will  pro- 
ceed,  by  inquirinir;  Why  do  you  refuse  us,  whom  you  deem  baptized,  ad- 
mission to  the  communion  table? 

Baptist.— Oae  reason  is,  because  we  consider  you  disorderly  walkers,  in 
Ihalyou  commune  with  those  whom  we  deem  unbaptized;  i.  e.  those  who 
have  only  been  sprinkled  in  their  infancy.  Now,  were  we  to  commune 
with  you,  we  should  virtually  sanction  your  conduct,  and  thus  "express 
our  fellowship  for  inlantsprinkling  second-handed."  And  wr^  might  as 
well  express  our  fellowship  for  ii,  to  the  Pedobaptists  themselves.  But 
why,  let  me  ask,  do  you  not  join  our  chu  rchi 

Methodist. — For  the  simple  reason,  that  we  cannot  fellowship  your  doc- 
trines and  church  organization. 

Baptist.— For  the  same  reason  we  refuse  to  admit  you  to  our  comrau- 
nion.*  If  you  cannot  fellowship  a  church  in  its  doctrines  and  organiza- 
tion, how  canyou  enter  that  church,  and  unite  with  ihem  in  a  joint-par- 
ticipation of  the  Lord's  Supper? 

Methodist. — Our  denomination,  I  presume  you  are  aware,  are  in  favor 
of  open  communion.  Therefore  we  cheerfully  invite  you  notwithstand- 
ing our  differences. 

Baptist.— Bm,  My  brother,  in  doing  that,  you  not  only  violate  the  dic- 
tates of  reason  and  sound  philosophy,  but  even  the  rules  of  your  book  of 
Discipline.  For,  in  the  •22nd  sectjon  oi  that  book,  you  say :  "  No  person 
shall  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper  among  us,  who  is  guilty  of  any 
practice,  for  which  we  would  exclude  a  member  of  our  church."  And  in 
the  18th  section,  you  are  required  to  expel  "those  ministers  or  'preachers, 
who  hold  and  conscientiously  disseminate  publicly  or  privately  doctrines 
which  are  contrary  to  your  articles  of  religion  ;"  and  by  the  7th  section 
of  the  2nd  chapter,  to  expel  private  members  for  "  disobedience  to  the 
order  and  discipline  of  the  church,"  or  for  "inveighing  against  either 
your  doctrine  or  discipline." 

Methodist. — And  is  not  this  as  it  should  be?  Can  a  ''house  divided 
against  itself  stand?"  "  Can  two  walk  together  except  they  be  agreed?" 
And  is  not  the  practice  of  excluding  for  heresy  justified  by  apostolic  exam- 
ple, and  the  concurrent  practice  of  almost  every  Christian  sect  in  the 
world  ? 

Baptist. — Most  certainly!  And  I  believe  that  every  church  that  is  striv- 
ing to  keep  the  doctrines  and  ordinances  of  the  church  pure,  as  they  were 
first  delivered  to  the  saints,  and  who  value  truth  and  their  internal  peace 
more  than  they  do  numbers,  will  reject  those  persons,  whom  they  deem 

*  "AVe  doubt  whether  the  Methodist  denomination  can  long  retain  its  present  or- 
ganization. The  clergy  have  the  whole  ecclesiisstical  power  in  their  hands.  That 
the  laity,  in  this  republican  country,  have  so  long  submiUcd  to  the  absolute  sway  of 
the  clergy,  must  be  attril)uted,  partly  to  the  peculiar  character  of  tlieir  nienibrrs,  and 
partly  to  the  fact,  that  the  power  has  on  the  whole,  we  presume,  been  \\  isely  and 
fuithfuUy  employed.  AS  knowledge  increases  among  the  laity,  they  will  demand  a 
share  in  the  management  of  their  concerns.  There  has  already  been  a  schism.  A 
part  of  the  Methodists  seceded  in  133U,  and  formed  a  constitution  and  discipline  for 
liemselves.  They  have  adopted  the  name  of  Protestant  Methodists,  discarding  the 
exclusive  sway  of  the  clergy,  and  admitting  the  laity  to  a  share  in  the  government, 
tout  adhering  in  most  other  ^(•epe^^t3  to  the  usages  of  the  Methodists.  They  have  now 
about  ()d,000  members  and  they  will  undoubtedly  increase,  unlcBs  the  Methodist  shall 
aiodify  their  polite."    (Christian  Reyie^,  vol.  2d,  p.  202.) 


125 

deficient  in  the  fundamental  doctrines  and  discipline  of"  their  church.  Ant 
this  surely  is  restricted  counnunion.  But  I  am  nol  finding  fault  with  your 
rules  of  discipline,  lor  requiring  you  to  restrict  your  communion  to  those 
wJio  coincide  with  you  in  the  "doctrines,  order,  and  discipline"  of  your 
church,*  but  with  your  denomination,  for  violating  its  plain  requirements. 
Now,  my  brother,  your  church  iuvite  co.nmunicants  of  other  denom- 
inations, with  their  ministers,  to  unite  with  you,  in  the  celebration  of 
the  Lord's  Supper;  when,  if  those  very  persons  were  members  of  your 
church,  you  would  exclude  them  from  all  "privileges  of  society,  or  sacra- 
ments in  your  church,"  because  they  "hold  and  disseminate"  "doctrines 
contrary  to  your  articles  of  religion."  Do  you  not,  in  this  manner,  pour 
contempt  upon  the  requirements  of  your  iJook  of  Discipl.ne?  (Seethe 
22d  and  18th  sections,  also  the  7th  sec.  of  the  2d  chapter.)  Now,  how 
can  you,  with  any  show  of  consistency,  admit  the  members  of  other  de- 
nominations to  the  most  distinguished  privilege  in  the  church,  (i.  e-  the 
Lord's  Supper,)  and  then  debar  ihem  Irom  ad.uission  to  regular  member- 
Hhip  in  the  church,  merely  on  account  ol  a  d.ft'erence  of  opinion,  on  points 
conlessedly  of  minor  importance  ?  If  such  persons  cannot  be  admitted  to 
membership  in  the  church,  how  can  they,  in  consistency,  be  admitted  to 
the  church  ordinance  of  the  Lords  Supper]  Jehovah  saith,  (Lev.  24:  22) 
"  Ye  shall  have  one  manner  of  law  as  well  for  tJie  stranger  as  for  one  of 
your  own  country."  Hence,  if  a  Christian  brother  is  entitled  to  admis- 
sion to  the  communion  table,  lor  the  same  reason  he  is  entitled  to  every 
other  privilege  pertaining  to  church  membership. 

Methodist  — Do  I  understand,  then,  tjiat  it  is  your  opinion,  that  church 
communion  ougiit  to  extend  only  to  those  persons  who  can  be  admitted  to 
regular  meinbership  in  the  church. 

Baptist. — These  are  my  sentiments.  J  believe  that  this  restriction  is 
founded  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  and  is  the  only  proper,  consistent 
boundary  to  communion.  Then  those  persons  who  can  be  admitted  to 
membership  in  the  churches  of  any  particular  denomination,  may  be  admit- 
ted to  the  communion  in  the  churches  composing  their  own  denomination, 
on  the  same  principle  that  they,  as  members  of  one  church,  remove  their 
standing  to  a  sister  church  in  the  same  connection. 

Methodist. — My  friend,  to  say  nothing  of  your  restricted  communion,  it 
is  deeply  to  be  regretted  that  there  are  any  obstacles  in  the  way  that  pre- 
vent the  cordial  communion  of  all  evangelical  religious  sects,  but  surely 
we  cannot  be  culpable  lor  these  obstacles,  vvhile  we  cheerfully  invite  all 
these  sects  to  o\ir  communion. 

Baptist. — My  brother,  we  have  before  shown,  but  you  was  not  present, 
that  the  principal  obstacle  which  prevents  a  cordial  communion  at  the 
Lord's  table,  between  the  members  of  the  Baptist  and  Pedobaptist  church, 
is  the  substituting,  by  Pedobaptists,  infant  and  adtdf.  rantism  for  believers' 
baptism;  and  so  long  as  you  with  others  practise  this  substitute,  so  long 

*  The  Roman  Catholics  restrict  their  communion  to  those  of  their  own  church. 
The  Episcopalians  would  do  the  same,  if  they  acted  in  accordance  with  their  senti- 
ments, for  they  will  not  admit  that,  among  all  the  Protestant  churches,  themselves  ex- 
cepted, that  there  is  one  minister  or  officer  legally  ordained,  and  therefore  no  ordinan- 
ces duly  administered,  and  consequently  no  churches  scripturally  organized.  Hence 
they  do  not  exchange  pulpit  labors  with  the  ministers  of  other  sects,  nor  invite  them 
to  take  any  part  in  their  religious  worship,  hut  close  their  pulpits  against  them.  Now 
if  they  refuse  to  invite  th.-se  ministers  to  take  any  part  in  their  public  worship,  be- 
cause they  cannot  admit  the  validity  of  their  ordiiiation,  how  can  they  invite  these 
•eame  ministers  with  their  members  to  communicate  with  them,  when,  by  so  doing, 
they  practically  admit  the  validity  of  their  baptism. 


you  will  lend  your  influence  to  perpetuate  this  obstacle;  but  when  your 
regret  shall  become  so  deep  as  to  causae  you  to  return  to  primitive  immer- 
sion, then,  and  not  till  then,  will  you  remove  this  obstacle,  or  cease  to  be 
culpable  lor  iis  existence. 

But  in  inviting  the  members  of  all  religious  sects  jto  the  Lord's  Supper, 
you  are  inconsistent  with  yourself,  i.  e.  with  your  rules  ofdiscipline.  How- 
can  you  invite  us  to  a  joint-participation  with  you  at  the  Lord's  Supper, 
while  you  believe  we  are  actually  engaged  in  promulgating  doctrines  that 
are  not  only  derogatory  t :-  God,  but  even  subversive  of  all  revealed  reli- 
gion? Such  you  represent  our  sentiments  to  be.  So.e  your  tract  No.  35. 
In  that  you  affirm  Uial  tlie  doctrines  which  we  hold  have  "a  d;rect  ten- 
dency to  over(Jn-ow  the  whole  Christian  revelation;" — that  they  "repre- 
"sent  our  blessed  Lord  an  hypociite,  adeceiver  oi  the  people,  a  man  void  of 
common  sincerity;"  and  again,  "the  most  holy  G.)d  as  worse  than  the  devil ! 
as  botli  more  false,  more  ci'iiel,  and  more  unjust." 

Methodist  — My  friend,  as  this  tract  was  written  by  one  of  the  members 
of  our  church,  the  whole  denomination  ought  not  to  be  held  responsible 
for  it. 

Baptist. — I  am  very  ready  to  acknowledge  they  ought  not  to  be,  if  it  was 
only  printed  by  him,  and  circulated  by  his  means;  but  the  truth  is,  this 
tract  was  not  only  written  by  John  Wesley,  the  founder  of  your  denomin- 
ation, but  it  is  published  under  the  authority  of  your  church,  and  circulated 
throughout  this  country  by  their  means.  Hence  your  denomination  are 
responsible  for  the  statements  it  contains.  If  they  are  true,  and  we  were 
members  of  your  church,  you  would  be  compelled  to  exclude  us.  Hence 
you  cannot,  by  the  rules  of  your  discipline,  nor  W'th  ariy  show  of  consis- 
tency, admit  us  to  the  Loid's  Supper.  If  they  are  not  true,  then  you  are 
guilty  of  detraction,  and  we  could  not,  even  by  your  rules  of  discipline, 
admit  you  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  imtil  by  a  proper  confession  you  give  evi- 
dence of  repentance.  As  we  cannot  admit  that  these  statements  are  true, 
we  are  compelled  to  believe  that  you  have  slandered  us. 

Methodist. — Our  Pe;!obaptist  brethren  welcome  us  to  their  communion 
table,  and  they  hold  the  same  doctrinal  sentiments  that  you  do;  and  ought 
not  you  to  do  the  same  ? 

Baptist. — My  fiiend,  their  practicv^  can  never  form  a  rule  for  our  con- 
duct. We  are  required  to  follow  the  apostles  example,  only  so  tar  as^they 
followed  Ch'ist.  We  deri  -e  our  rule  tiom  our  Lord's  commission,  and  the 
apostle's  example.  By  this  we  feel  ourselvr^s  bound  to  regulate  our  prac- 
tice. But  weie  v/e  invested  with  the  right  to  "  ordain,  change,  or  abolish 
rites  and  ceremonies"  in  the  church,  as  your  22d  article  evidently  implies, 
porhaps  we  could  so  arrange  things  as  to  admit  all  whom  we  deem  Chris- 
tians. But  we  have  never  been  invested  with  any  such  authority,  and  we 
have  no  desire  to  be.  Those  who  claim  to  possess  tluB  legislative  power, 
ought,  in  order  to  justify  themselves  in  the  exercise  of  it,  to  show  by  in- 
contestible  ev  deuce,  that  they  received  their  credentials  li-orn  none  other 
than  Jesus  Christ,  the  Lawgiver  in  Zion. 

But,  my  friend,  as  you  are  so  strenuous  for  what  you  terra  open  com- 
munion, whai  happv  result,  I  would  ask,  has  it  ever  produced,  or  do  you 
expect  will  ever  be  accomplished  by  it  ? 

Methodist. — We  expect  it  will  produce  a  generous,  fervent  charity,  and  a 
kind,  fraternal  feeling  among  all  denominations  who  practise  it,  and  event- 
ually break  down  the  barriers  that  separate  all  these  various  sects. 

Baptist. — My  friend,  if  open  or  mixed  communion  would  only  break 
down  the  partition  walls  that  now  separate  the  various  sects  of  Pedobap- 


127 

lists,  and  unite  them  harmoniously  into  one  denorainalian;  or,  if  it  could 
l>?  8h..%vn  that  it  has  any  such  tendency,  I  should  regard  it  far  more  favor- 
ably than  I  now  do.  i'ut  judging  from  the  experience  of  the  past,  I  anti- 
cipate no  such  results.  VVIiere  lias  the  practice  of  it  abated  the  acrin:ony 
of  party  feelings,  or  ca'med  i!own  ilie  vv.ive-'  of  conflicting  sentiments, 
among  the  various  sects  that  somelimes,  tliough  seldom,  practise  it? 
Where  has  it  rver  united  luo  of  these  sects  inio  one,  or  even  prevented  di- 
visions from  arising  in  each  in  iivi  ual  sect,*  or  so  strengthened  the  bands 
of  Christian  aff-ction  and  sojial  jnteicourse,  a.s  to  lead  its  minJBters  to  a 
more  liberal  exchange  of  pulpit  labors.  Methodists  remain  Methodists 
still,  I'or  all  that  open  or  mixed  conmmnion  lias  done,  and  they  preach  as 
much  against  the  doctrines  emlwaced  by  Congregationalists  aud  Presbyie- 
rians,  as  ever,  and  so  vice  versa.  Indeed  I  do  not  s^e  as  I'^re  is  any  n.'ore 
union  of  feelmg  existing,  between  Ep  scopalians,  PieobyJerians  ai.d  Meth- 
odists, or  even  between  the  Presbyterians  of  the  Old  and  New  School,  or 
between  tne  Episcopal  and  other  Meihodists,  tlian  there  is  between  either 
of  these  sects  and  the  Baptists.  Now,  until  it  can  be  shown,  that  free  or 
mixed  communion  lias  a  tend?ii-cy,  to  break  dov\  n  the  denominational  bar- 
riers that  separate  its  professed  friends,  or  to  produce  some  of  the  desirable 
results  alluded  to,  I  trust  we  shall  not  be  condemned  lor  not  adopting  i», 
or  for  not  being  able  to  perceive  its  utility;  especially  as  we  can  find  noth- 
ing in  the  New  Testament  to  sanction  it. 

Again,  this  mixed,  or  intercommunion  with  se;'ts  so  diverse  in  sentiment, 
instead  of  promoting  union,  is  the  very  thing  that  wiU  prevent  it.  'I  his 
is  rendered  clear  from  the  lollowng  considerations.  No  individual  Chris- 
tian, that  is  govi^rned  bj'  moral  sense,  will  ever  change  his  sentiments  or 
practice,  unless  he  feels  himself  obligated  to  -do  it.  Hence  the  various 
sects  in  C/hristendom  can  never  become  united  in  faith  and  practice,  until 
they  feel  themselves  under  moral  obligation  to  become  so. 

Now  this  free  or  mixed  communion  virtually  declares,  and  is  admirably 
adapted  to  make  every  denoni  nation  wliich  practice  it,  feel  that  each  has 
an  equal  right  to  his  own  eho-^en  way,  however  diverse  it  may  be  from 
every  other,  in  those  doctrinal  sentimnnt^  and  duties,  which  are  so  expli- 
citly revealed,  and  so  plainly  enjoined  in  the  scriptures,  ihtii  vomari  need  err 
therein.  Now  if  every  sect  has  a  rijiht  to  its  own  way  or  belief,  then  every 
command  addressed  to  Cliristians,  to  be  of  onem.nd,  is  rendered  nugatory, 
and  consequently  no  obligation  rest-  on  them  U>  become  one  in  sentimcil't 
and  piactice.  Hence,  loo,  it  is  obvious,  that  they  W'U  never  become  one 
while  this  feeling  prevails  And  as  this  feeling  is  the  natural  product  of 
mixed  commtmion,  it  is  evident,  that  so  long  :ts  it  is  practised,  so  long  thef>6 
divisions  will  contimie;  hence,  we  conceive  that  it  is  the  very  thing  adapted 
to  perpetuate  these  divisions. 

*  I'iie  f  rcsi)>  irriiiU  ciiur  ii,  ..iter  iiiu.ii  s^  vrre  >  omciiuon,  lor  st;\er;.l  years,  has  at 
t-ngth  burst  tlie  bands  that  h«l  I  n  r  toge;tier.  unl  is  now  very  equaily  dividi^d  into  two 
aecta  :— tlie  one  denoininatrd  "Old  Soticol,"  and  the  <  thrr  "New  School  "  Presbyter: - 
ana.  Recent  movinien'.s  at  tlie  :-outh  indicate  tliat  ai;otlicr  divisirn  will  ot:cnri.mong 
tiie  New  School,  on  ih-  subkct  of  slavt  ry. — It  is  worthy  of  note  here,  that  the  Pres- 
byterians of  the  Old  School  have  de  1.  red  non-f  llowsLip  with  those  of  the  Ntw. 

rt.veral  years  since,  a  v-ry  ivsp.-ciabl  dvision,  in  Hosion  and  other  parts  of  IVi;,ssr.- 
chusitts,  styling  th-mselves  Unitarians,  cunje  otf  from  the  C'origregaLional^Eis 

Th'j  Methodist  d -noiniiuuion,  as  we  have  bi  fore  r.-niarked,  has  already  had  it 
schism.  A  iarge  body  of  i  omniui  icants  filed  off  from  them,  styling  the  mselvcs  Prot- 
estant Methodists. 

As  far  as  my  experience  goes,  the  ministers  of  any  one  of  these  various  Fedobap- 
tist  sects  do  not  exchange  with  any  other  Pedobaptisi  sc-ct,  oftener  rhan  with  the  Bap- 
t'st.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  minister  of  this  place  would  not  exchante  with  the 
raini^ters  of  the  other  Method's:  societies,  even  if  he  would  coD:n;une  with  them. 


128 

Again,  the  very  origin  of  Tree  or  mixed  commimion  shows  that  iL  is 
vvrong.  In  apostolic  times,  there  was  but  one  denoiiiiuation;  and  had  all 
Christian.-;  rollo\v3  i  Christ's  directions,  and  th-^  aponlas'  exauiple,  there 
never  wonid  have  h^en  bjt  one.  Tiiey  wore  alireqiireJ  to  do  tiiis,  Ifad 
(hey  obeyed  this  reqiiireinsut,  tliere  would  have  been  no  denominational 
divisions,  and  consequently  no  mixed  communiou.  From  this,  we  per- 
ceive that  mixed  cotntnunion  is  an  invention  of  inau — that  it  had  no  exist- 
ence in  apostoHc  times,  bat  originated  in  the  denomina'ional  divisions 
caused  by  Christans  disobedience;  consequently  vv^hen  tiiese  divisions 
cease,  mixed  communion  will  cease.  Hence  it  follows,  tliiit  mixed  com- 
munion is  wrong,  us  i!  is  the  very  offspring  of  disobedience,  and  ought  not 
therefore  to  be  practised. 

I  would  remark  liere,  my  brother,  lliat  there  is  neither  precept  or  exam- 
ple in  all  the  scriptures,  lo  autliorize  the  tiue  church,  or  those  who  ''keep 
tlie  ordinances  as  they  were  d-^livered,"  to  receive  to  the  commuidon, 
those  Christians  who  have  departed  from  the  prescribed  order  of  Christ's 
commission,  and  from  apostolic  example. 

Finally,  there  is  a  manifest  inconsi>tency.  in  Pedobaptists  or  Baptists 
inviting  different  denominations  to  the  church  ordinance  of  communion, 
and  then  refusing  to  unite  with  tliem  in  one  denomination.  This  requir 
jng  certain  qualifications  for  adini<si(  n  to  the  church  ordinance  of  com- 
munion, and  very  different  ones  for  admission  to  church  u)embership,  had 
no  existence  in  apostolc  times,  and  consequently  has  no  scriptura"  author- 
ity to  sustain  it.  But  if  there  be  any  scriptural  authority  for  m  xed  com- 
munion, is  there  not  the  same  scripiural  authority  for  niixed  membership? 
Where  is  tliere  any  distinction  lo  1)6  /bund  in  scripture?  If  apostolic  pre- 
cept "enjoins  mixed  communion,  it  also  enjo  ns  mixed  luember-rhip  with 
ell  its  train  of  evils;"  but  "  if  it  does  not  snjoin  such  a  union  with  Pedo- 
baptists  in  church  membership,  neither  does  it  authorize  their  reception  to 
communion  in  a  church  ordinance." 

Metliodis'.—Mv  friend,  I  have  never  looked  a(  this  subject  in  this  light 
before.  By  showing  t!ie  origin  of  our  principles  of  communion,  and  their 
effects  when  carried  out  in  practice,  you  liave  certainly  made  them  appear 
not  on'y  unreasonable,  but  even  very  inconsistent  with  scripture;  so  mucli 
so,  that  I  am  resolved  to  re-examine  tiie  subject,  before  I  again  attempt  to 
de'end  it.     You  will  therefore  excuse  me.     lExeKiit  ] 

Ptdohaptist. — \Ve:I,  my  friend,  as  our  Presbyterian  and  Methodist  breth- 
ren have  left,  I  would  jnst  state  that  during  !!;o  prnrrre??  of  your  conversa- 
tion, in  v/hicli  I  felt  a  deep  inter.'st,  several  of  the  objdclions  that  rested 
with  some  W'ight  on  my  mind,  you  very  satisfactorily  answered.  Still, 
as  a  whole,  lam  dissatisfied  with  my  brethren's  defence  of  the  Pedobaptist 
views  of  communion,  and  with  your  consent  I  should  like  to  resume  the 
conversation. 

Baptist. — Please  lo  proceed, 

Pclobapfist. — Your  denominal ion,  my  friend,  regard  baptism  as  a  pre- 
requisite to  the  Lord's  supper,  and  yet  your  pnict  ce  is  so  inconsistent 
with  your  pnnc-iple^s,  that  you  will  not  even  commune  with  those  persons, 
belonging  to  Pcdobai)tist  churches,  who,  in  your  judgment,  have  been 
baptized.     How  do  you  reconcile  your  practice  with  your  princples! 

Baptist.— My  dear  brjthcr,  it  is  true,  we  regard  baptism  as  an  essential 
prerequisite  to  church  coiTunnnion,  but  not  the  onlv  one;  for  even  this, 
in  the  absence  of  faiili  and  a  mani^N'  Christian  walk  and  character,  can 
never  in  our  viev,^  qu  ilify  a  mm  for  church-membership,  or  lor  a  par- 
ticipation with  us  at  the  Lord's  Supper.     The  reason  why   we  do  not  as- 


120 

jsociate  with  this  class  of  persons  in  the  celebration  of  this  ordinonce  in 
because  ihey  eudor.se  and  sanction  t!  at  conduct  in  oiherh;  which  vv-e  be 
lieve  is  heresy  and  which  they  could  not  approbate  themselves  in  doing.* 
'•  It  is  an  rcknowledged  principle,  that  voluntary  r.ssoL-i.  tion  with  offen- 
ders, impliesasanction  oftheir  iaulls."  It  is  on  this  principle  that  all 
church  discipline  proceed'.  Hence  ths  apostle  e.vhorls  us  not  io  sanction 
iht  disorderly  walk  oi'our  brethren  by  a  conti.mous  fellowship  with  them. 
•'  Now,"  says  Paul,  "  we  command  you  brethren  in  the  najne  ot  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  vdhdravj  ymirselves  from  every  brother  that  waikeih 
disorderly.'''  And  the  Baptists  1  believe  are  not  alone  in  requiring  that 
those  should  m.'iiniain  an  orderly  Christian  walk  to  whom  they  extend 
church  communion.  N'uw  these  persons  who  have  truly  been  baptized, 
not  only  endorse  and  sanction  what  we  deem  erroneous  in  others,  but 
they  practically  deny  the  s^'imenl  thrt  baptism  is  a  prerequisite  to  com- 
munion and  church  membership,  (a  sentiment  held  by  their  own  and 
almost  every  other  denomination,)  by  corainuning  with  those  w^hom  they 
deem  unbaptized.  Hence  the  reason  is  obvious  why  we  do  not  commune 
with  ihes^  persons.  But  were  we  to  commune  w-ii"h  them  we  should  fel- 
lowship thetTi  in  th-:*  pr.':ctice  of  communing  with  unbaptized  churches. 
For  the  same  reason  w'e  could  fellowship  ourselves  in  practising  inter- 
communion with  unbaptized  churches. 

Fedobaflist—  My  brother,  suppose  you  were  to  unite  with  them  in 
church  commimion  what  consequences  would  followl  Would  you  not 
thereby  exhibit  more  cf  the  Christian  Spirit  at  d  affection  than  3-"ou  now 
do-? 

Baptist. — Suppose  we  were  to  commune  iviih  ii;cm  wc  mu.-t  virtually 
acknowledge  that  the  commission  (>f  Christ  and  the  practice  of  the  apos- 
tles are  not  sufficient  evidence  to  prov.:-  that  bpiism  i^  a  prerequisite  to 
communion,  and  if  they  are  not  sufficient  evidence  to  prove  that  position, 
then  they  are  not  sufficient  to  prove  thrr  faith  io  a  prerequirie  to  baptism.! 

On  this  supposition  let  us  see  what  cor.sequenees  would  legitimately 
follow.  Now  it  is  evident  if  we  give  i-p  tho  seniimient  thtt  baptism  is  an 
essential  preliminary  to  church  communion,  for  the  s:  me  reason  we 
should  give  up  the  sentiment  that  faith  is  an  indi  ponsr.ble  qi;nlification 
for  baptism.    And  when  these  priiiciplcs  are  surrendered    we    have  not 

*  St-veral  years  sini-ea  iiuin  rtsirltd  in  oiii-of  t]:e  low  i.s  fcfC'oiii.ectitut,  by  thenr.nie 
J,  Gr.Tnt,  who  had  Leen  gpiinkltd  in  hi?  infancy,  rnd  was  thin  n  dk  mber  cf  fV:e  Ccn- 
gregutional  chiircli.  By  studying  Jiis  Bilde  he  tCLiitne  convinced  that  beiievfrs  src 
the  only  scripturstl  suhji-cis,  r.iul  immersion  the  onU  gospel  br.ptii-m;  and  regardirg 
baptism  as  a  prer.'-quisite  tojroiijmunion,  :ind  hiniself  ss  ui'.hrrptized,  he  could  notron- 
aisteiuly  come  To  the  coinmiinion  tr.ble.  In  the  uit  an  lime  he  informed  his  ministt  r  of 
his  chr.hire  of  views.  Alter  some  conversation,  the  minister,  finding  that  nothing  eJsc 
would  satisfy  his  mind,  told  him  that  h-  wi.uld  immerse  him,  "So  they  both  went 
down  into  the  water,"  rnd  he  immersed  him,  "and  when  they  came  up  out  of  the  wa- 
ter, he  went  on  his  wry  ri-jnicing."  As  he  w;:s  on  his  way  to  meeting,  at  the  next 
communion  season,  be  said  to  hin  self,  "J.  Cirrt  t  rould  not  commune  with  J.  Grant, 
[i.e.  with  himself  JLefore  J.  Grant  was  baptized:  tlitrefore  he  staid  nway  from  the 
communion!  Now,  if  J.  Gram  could  no!  cfdnniune  with  J.  Grant  before  J.  Grrnl 
\v,ns  baptized,  how  ran  he  cominiine  with  all  the  other  intmbcrs  of  this  ehuroh,  wla 
are  in  the  same  condition  that  J.  Grant  w'as before  lus  baptism  ,  or  in  othci  wcr<!s.  ])r,w 
can  J.  Grant  fellowship  others  in  doing  that  which  i.ecoiild  not  fellowship  hi.n,se]f  in 
doing."  The  result  was,  he  W'ithdrew"and  united  witTi  a  Baptist  church.  Now  there 
are  multitudes  like  J.  Grant,  who  are  in  sentiment  Baptists,  and  yet  they  are  so  in- 
consistent as  to  unite  with  a  Pcdobaptist  church  by  in  mersion;  and  in  this  msnuer 
throw  the  whole  of  their  influence  in  favor  of  whatthty  deem  errcr,  and  against  their 
own  peculiar  s^cntimf  n's. 

t  "^Ve  have  shown,  in  the  foririer  part  of  this  "Convcrscticn,"  that  the  Comicission 
of  Christ,  and  the  uniform  practice  of  the  Epos'lc?,  are  the  main  evidences  that  Suf- 
port  both  of  these  positions. 


130 

only  rampletely  abandoned  ihr.t  bsTiUifiil,  primitive,  apostolical  mode  of 
church-building  but  we  hive  dt-raoli^'i'd  'he  loundaiion  and  superstruc- 
ture of  our  own  denomination,  thai  noble  edifice  which  alone  is'inodeled 
after  the  apostolic  church.  Hence  ii  is  perfectly  t)bvious  wliy  Pedobap- 
lis*.s  are  generally  so  lavish  in  their  pr.ii^fs  ol  open  communion.  The 
more  intellij^eni  part  o(  ihem  know  very  well  thai  in  ihis  ra.mner  they  are 
contending  most  effectually,  tiiousjh  indiiecily  for  their  own  views  of 
baptism.  And  .-hould  we  unite  with  them,  we  should  adopt  the  most  ef- 
fectual measures  to  exiin^uish  our  denominnional  principles  ;  and  con- 
sequently '7(7  an7ii  ilale,  as  sue  ,  all  t  e  I  aithi  c  urc  es  in  <'l  ristendom  ! 
— to  disso've  t  e  only  communhn  of  C!trhLiaus  w  ic'i  (in  the  opinion  of  Sir 
Isaac  Newton,)  ?ier^r  s//7?jftfl/i2e^  vit  tec  urc  of  Rome!-  to  unc' urch 
t'e  only  c'urches  in  t/icvorld,  in  to  ic'i  \o\\y  opponents  themselves  being 
juds^es)  the  <  rdinances  ofji'sus  C  rist  zre  kept  as  t  ey  were  delivered.''^  Nor 
is  this  the  on'y  result,  Xox  it'  aprsiojic;.!  loecedent  is  not  deemed  >ufficient 
evidence  to  prove  thil  bapiifm  is  a  preroquisiie  to  church  communion, 
then  it  is  not  .sufficient  to  prove  tluit  bip;ismis  a  prerequisite  to  church- 
membsrship.  Therefore  should  any  church  contend  that  unbaptized 
persons  should  be  admiited  to  the  communion  talde,  for  the  same  reason 
tha;  church  should  adtnit  su'^h  persons  ks  reijular  members  of  the  church. 
And  should  anv  be  framed  admis-ion  iu'o  he  church,  without  the  obser- 
vance of  the  lite  of  baptism,  for  the  same  re  sou,  permission  should  be 
granted  those  persons  to  re;iinin  in  the  church  witlumt  the  ob'^ervancc  of 
the  rite  of  communion.  In  this  manner  the  stTndinc?  ordinances  of  the 
gospel  dispensation  commanded  to  :e  kept  as  ihey  were  dt-livered  may  be 
abolished  bv  our  denomination  And  if  the  Baptist  denomination  give 
up 'hese  ordinances  because  apo'^!olic  exa  ;:pe  is  not  deemed  evidence 
sufficient  for  their  observance;  for  the  sr  me  reason  all  Pedi  baptist  de- 
nominations might  give  them  up  and  we  m-tsi  then  go  over  to  Gluakerism. 
These  consequences  must  unavoid  blv  foiiow.  npou  the  hypothesis,  that 
apostolic  example  is  not  conclusive  "-vid  nee.  ihai  bipti-^.n  is  an  indispen- 
sable qualification  for  churrh  cimi!)Uiii<m.  Hence  we  conclude  that  a 
principle  that  involves  consequences  so  prepn  temu^,  c.runoi  have  i's  foun- 
dation in  truth  and  ought  not  to  beadmi  ed  Tl.erid'ore  we  are  compelled 
to  admit,  as  the  only  altern.'ilive,  that  apoN  o'ic  ex.  mple  does  prove  that 
baptism  is  an  )ndis(>ensab!e  pr(!requi.>;ilp  lo  rln>rc.}i  romuiunion.  Upon  ihis 
admission,  it  follows,  that  if  we  would  act  in  coii.'orinity  1o  apostolic  ex 
amplp,  and  follow  them  as  tlerf  follotced.  Cl.risf,  und  kerp  the  ordivancrs  as 
they  were  dclh-ered,  1  Cor.  11:  I,  '2.  2^.  v\  c  1  ;.ve  no  scriptural  authority  to 
commune  at  the  Lord's  lahle,  with  ilio.-e  \vj:<>m  we  deem  vnba.f  tized ;  nor 
with  those,  who,  llioug'h  baptized,  arc  nrvf.iiheivss  in  other  things  not 
conformed  to  "the  apostles'  docirine  an<l  fidhwsh^p."  Let  tliose  whodes.'re 
to  commune  with  us  at  the  Lords  table.  |  ro*  e  »o  us  that  they  have  been 
baotized,  and  that  they  are  walking  in  th-  order  and  faith  of  the  gospel, 
nnl  we  will  most  cheerlully  unite  with  ihom  in  the  celebration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper. 

Pedoh'iptJst. — My  friend,  the  disastrous  CRnspquences  which  yon  have 
shown,  would  inevitably  follniv.  hv  giving  rp  the  pr  nciple  that  baptism  is 
a  prerequisite  to- cori.niimion.  >' hi(dt  yon  ii.iisi  do,  in  order  to  commune 
with  us,  proves  conchisividy  that  yon  Jmvr  adopted  the  only  reasonable 
course.  I  perceive  nlso,  thai  in  cpn-nring  ■  on.  vve  condemn  ourselves; 
for  we,  as  a  denomination,  coriuMine  w  iih  on]y  those  whcm  w?  deen)  bap 
tJzed,  and  you  do  the  snme.  iVovV.  I  a'l)  tiiorouglily  crmv  need,  that  your 
gener.l  principles  of  comajuninu  ;ir  •%'orrpcl.  hut  then  there  are  several 
Qbjeciious  which  I   have  freqm  u!ly  liea/d  urj^cd  against  restricted  codqv 


131 

munion,  which  I  liave  never  Iieard  satisfactorily  answered.  "How  cam 
you  tellowship  Christians  and  Christian  ministers,  in  prayer,  prujse,  and 
preaching,  and  yet  not  admit  them  to  cornnninion?" 

Baptist. — "  For  this,  my  rriend,  we  ha\p  scriptural  authority,  in  the  ex- 
hortation of  Paul:  'Whereto  we  have  aiready  ai:a  ned,  let  us  walk  by  the 
fame  rule,  let  us  mind  the  same  i.'iing.'  We  have  attained  to  an  agree- 
ment in  pray.ng  to  the  saii»e  God  and  Fa! her  ot'all;  and  al?o  in  preaching 
the  gosppl  ol'  his  Son  Jesus  Christ;  but  we  have  not  atiaine.1  lo  an  agree- 
ment respecting  the  subjects  and  mode  ot  baptism,  nor  in  the  visible  qualifi- 
cations of  commun:cuni6  at  the  Lord's  table." 

Ptdubaptist. — My  triend,  your  answer  appears  very  satisfactory,  "but 
do  you  not,  by  your  course,  vnchurch  other  denominations,  and  say,  they 
are  not  churches  of  Christ?" 

Baptist. — "We  do  not  say  they  are  not  churches  of  Christ.  True,  dis- 
tingui-rhed  Pedopabtisis  have  said,  'where  tktre  is  no  baptism,  there  are  n© 
visiblt  churches;'  *  but  we  regard  it  as  sufficient  tor  us,  to  say  of  those 
brethren  who  do  not  admuiisler  the  ordinance  according  to  the  law  of 
Christ's  kngdom,  tiiat  thost  churches  are  not  regularly  constUi.ted." 

Pedubaptist. — My  brother,  whether  our  churches  are  r.  gularly  consti- 
tuted or  not,  one  thing  is  certain,  we  are  commanded  to  be  followers  or 
imitators  of  God,  Eph.  5:  1,  and  he  you  know  communes  with  all  Chris- 
tians. 

Baptist. — My  iriend,  1  am  very  willing  to  admit,  that  we  are  commanded 
to  be  loUowers  (imitators)  ol  God;  but  it  ooes  not  follow,  from  this  fact, 
that  he  communes  with  or  fellowships  all  Christians,  whether  obedient  or 
disobedient;  for  if  he  does  this,  then  it  plainly  lollows  that  he  fellowships 
us  in  observing  belever's  imme  sion  exclusively,  and  in  rpjecting  all  Pedo- 
baptists  from  the  communion  table,  tw^  also  that  you  are  bound  to  do  the 
same;  so  that  the  very  objection  you  urge  against  our  peculiar  senti- 
ments and  practice,  proves  that  you  are  bound  to  fellowship  us,  in  those 
sentiments  and  practice. 

Pedohaptist. — I  perceive  that  my  objection  is  wrong,  for  t  is  based  upon 
the  assumpiion,  that  God  communes  with  all  Christians,  whether  right  or 
wrong,  and  if  he  wpre  to  do  this,  he  would  approbate  the  wrong  as  well  a* 
the  right,  which  would  plainly  contradict  his  revealed  will  But  J  presume 
that  you  will  grant  that  we  are  obligated  to  follow  God  in  fellowshipping 
all  Christians,  in  those  acts  in  which  he  fellowshi})s  them.  Now,  rajr 
brother,  have  you  any  evidence,  that  the  Baptists,  in  the  observance  of 
their  pecu.iar  sentiments,  are  imitators  o.  followers  of  Christ,  and  that  the 
Pedobap'.ists  are  not;  or  that  Christ  fellowships  the  Baptists  as  Baptista, 
and  that  he  does  not  tellowship  the  Pedobaptists  as  Pedobaptists? 

Baptist. — As  we  are  commanded  to  follow  Christ,  it  is  plain  that,  as  he, 
and  the  apostles  who  followed  his  example,  went  down  into  the  water, 
and  were  baptized  (immersed)  before  they  celebrated  the  Supper,  we  are 
obligated  by  the  command  to  follow  their  example;  and  if  any  Christian 
(though  a  Pedohaptist)  is  unwilling  to  do  this,  God  cannot  fellowship  him, 
in  this  act  of  disobedience;  and  hence  it  follows,  that  we  have  no  right  to 
doit.  Now.  ii  ii  a  fact  that  God  places  the  broad  seal  ot  his  approbation 
UDon  the  delightful  primitive  oidinance  of  believer's  immersion,  by  blef«- 
ing  it  not  only  to  the  conviction  and  conversion  of  many  souls,  but  to  the 
unspeakable  joy  and  peace  of  mind  of  multitudes  who  literally  observe  it, 
This  we  deem  strong  corroborative  evidence,  that  he  fellowships  those  wh© 
observe  it.    (See  Ps.  51:  12,  13)     At  the  same  time,  he  withholds  Uie 


132 

Spirit's  convicting  influence,  in  the  observance  of  (Calvin's  substitute)  in- 
fant and  adult  sprinkling,  which  we  think  is  strong  collateral  evidence, 
that  he  does  not  lellowsiiip  it;  and  iC  hk  does  not  fellowship  it,  we  have 
no  right  tod:  it.  Now,  my  brother,  ifyou  and  all  oiher  Pedcbaplifts  were 
to  imitate  Christ's  example  in  this  respact,  we  should  all  commune  togeth- 
er, not  only  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  but  in  the  Loni's  Supper,  and  the 
close  commvnwn  about  winch  you  complain,  would  jorever  cease  to  exist. 

Pedo baptist. — But,  my  brother,  you  know,  on  a  certain  occasion,  Christ 
ordered  his  disciples  not  to  lorbid  one  casting  out  devils  who  followed  not 
after  them. 

Baptist. — My  fri«^nd,  it  is  evident  that  the  apostles  had  received  no  au- 
thority, for  prohibiting  the  man's  casting  out  devils,  or  lor  ordering  him  to 
follow  them;  but  Christ  has  authorized  his  churches  and  ministers,  "to 
contend  earnest ly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,"  and  to  teach 
Christians  "to  observe  all  things  wha  soevpr  he  has  commanded."  Final- 
ly, my  brother,  refusing  Pedobaplisis  admission  to  the  communion  table, 
is  not  forbidding  them  to  preach,  and  pray,  and  do  all  the  good  they  can. 

Pedobuptist. — But,  my  broth'  r,  you  know  it  is  said:  ''  Tiie  communion 
is  the  Lord's  table,  and  therefore  you  have  no  right  to  forbid  or  hinder  any 
of  his  children  from  coming  to  it." 

Baptist  — That  it  is  the  Lord's  table,  we  are  very  willing  to  grant; 
therelore  we  arc  boimd  to  observe  the  rules  he  has  given  us,  touching  the 
requisite  qualifications  for  adnjission  to  this  feast.  Were  the  table  ours, 
we  could  invite  whom  we  pleased,  without  any  regard  to  baptism.  And 
we  do  now  most  cheerfully  mvite  all  real  Christians  to  the  J^ord's  table, 
but  we  invite  them  first  to  baptism,  agreeably  to  the  conimission  of  Christ 
and  apostolic  exainple.  And  unless  it  can  be  shown  from  the  scriptures, 
that  unbaptized  persons  were  admitted  to  the  conmiunion,  in  the  primitive 
apostolic  hnrches,  we  must  still  believe,  that  we  have  no  scriptural  war- 
rant for  inviting  such  We  have  shown  that  there  is  no  more  impropriety 
in  admitting  unbaptized  persons,  to  regular  membership  in  the  church, 
than  there  is  in  admitting  them  to  the  communion. 

2.  If  the  "communion  is  the  Lord's  table,"  the  church  "s  the  Lord's 
house.  Now  almost  all  denominations  are  iigreed  that  baptism  is  the  door 
or  passage  appoinlea  by  Christ,  tor  entering  this  spiritual  building;  and  no 
denomina'ion  admits  any  one  as  completely  a  member  of  this  household  of 
fai'.h,  who  has  not,  in  their  view,  passed  through  th  s  door.  Hence,  we 
cheerfully  invite  all  believers,  wlio  desire  to  participate  with  us  in  the  pro- 
visions of  his  table,  to  come  inlhrougii  this  door  ot  the  Lord — fh>s  Grecian, 
apostolic  porch — this  highway,  cast  up  (or  the  ransomed  to  walk  in.  Now, 
my  brother,  if  any  believers  still  ret'use  to  accept  of  this  free,  full,  and 
scriptural  invitation,  to  come  in  throuirh  this  apostolic  passag'^,  because  it 
is  not  modeled  to  suit  their  fancy  or  convenience,  who  is  to  blame  if  they 
continue  without,  and  do  not  partake  of  the  provision-;  of  his  tMble?  Cer- 
tainly we  are  not;  for  we  had  nothing  to  do  with  modeling  this  building: 
that  was  done  by  Him  who  "is  too  wise  to  err,"  even  our  Master  Jesus 
Christ ;  and  he  has  given  us  no  auihority  to  construct  a  side  entrance,  in 
the  Roman  style,  in  "deference  to  the  miTe  fancy,  ..nd  for  the  accommoda- 
tion of  Christian  strangers; — thus  granting  them  a  privilege,  which  we 
deny  to  all  who  wish  to  become  members  of  our  household. 

Finally,  my  brother,  ii'  it  follows  that  because  the  communion  is  the 
Lord's  table,  and  the  ch.irch  the  Lord's  house,  therefore  ev(>ry  believing 
child  of  his,  has  a  right  to  enter  this  house,  in  deviation  from  his  prescribed 
requirements,  and  partake  of  the  provisions  of  his  table,  then  with  equal 


133 

propriety  it  will  follow,  that  because  the  ^ 'earth  and  the  fulness  thereof  is 
the  Lord's,"  therefore  every  one  of  his  children  has  a  right  to  enter  any 
enclosure,  and  partake  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth,  and  appropriate  the  cattle 
to  his  own  use,  in  deviation  trom  Jiis  requirements. 

Pedohaptist. — "We  shall  all  commune  together  in  Heaven,  and  ought 
therefore  to  commune  together  on  earth." 

Baptist — My  brother,  we  shall  all  join  one  denomination  in  Heaven,  and 
ought  therelore  to  do  it  on  earth.  All  Christians  in  Heaven  obey  the  com- 
jmands  of  God,  and  if  they  would  do  it  here,  the  Baptist  denomination  would 
gladly  receive  them  to  the  Lord's  table.  Again,  "theinhab.tants  ot  Heaven 
have  no  kind  of  communion  with  any  who  are  not  admitted  into  the  heav- 
enly church.  Hence,  we  act  eontrary  to  the  spirit  of  heaven,  whenever 
we  cornmune  willi  any  wh^-m  we  will  not  admit  into  the  gospel  church. 
Therefore,  the  example  of  the  saints  in  heaven,  does  not  ti-ach  us  to  vio- 
late the  prescribed  crder  of  Christ's  instiluiions,  by  inviting  unbaptized 
persons  to  the  communion."  Hence,  it  is  obvious,  that  the  blame  rests 
on  those  who  depart  Irom  the  gospel  order,  and  Jbrsake  "the  apostles'  doc- 
trine and  lellow  hip." 

2.  My  brother,  as  the  church  on  earth  is  difFarently  organized  from  the 
church  in  heaven,  it  must  be  evident  to  any  one,  that  there  is  a  manifest 
incongruity  in  arguing  trom  heaven  to  earth.  "  Jn  the  admission  of  mem- 
bers to  the  celestial  church,  Christ  acts  as  a  Sovereign;  in  the  adnji.ssion 
of  members  to  Christi;in  churciies  on  earth,  we  musl  act  as  servants — 
yielding  implicit,  undevialing  obedience  to  the  directions  of  our  sovereign 
Lord.  The  communion  of  'the  just  made  perfect,'  in  the  heavenly  church, 
will  not  consist  in  partaking  of  the  symbols  of  Christ's  death;  but  in  high 
and  spiritual  intercourse;  in  mutual  expressions  of  adoration  and  gratitude 
while  reviewing  the  dispensations  of  providence  and  grace  towards  them 
in  this  World;  in  mingled  songs  of  praise  to  Him  who  hath  washed  them 
from  their  sins  in  his  own  blood;  and  in  exalted  converse  concerning  the 
glorious  scenes,  which  the  revolutions  of  eternity  will  be  continually  un- 
folding to  their  delighted  gaz*^.  We  rejoice  in  the  blissful  anticipation  of 
this  communion.  But  we  are  not  willing  to  wait  until  that  period.  We 
would  enjoy  here  an  earnest  of  that  sublime  and  celestial  intercourse. 
We  plead  for  a  communion  on  earth,  with  Christians  of  every  sect,  which 
shall  bear  a  resemblance  to  that  of  heaven.  In  such  communion  as  this  all 
good  men  may  partake,  without  ever  silling  at  the  table  of  our  Lord. 

Pedohaptist. — My  friend,  a  sense  ot  duty  constrains  me  to  acknowledge 
that  you  have  not  only  conclusively  ard  satisfactoiily  answered  my  objec- 
tions, but  fully  convinced  me,  that  your  practice  of  restricted  communion, 
is  in  exact  harmony  with  the  great  law  of  the  commission,  and  with  the 
practice  of  the  apostles  and  primitive  churches. 

But,  mj-  brother,  I  fimt  notiiinj?  in  the  precepts  and  example  of  Christ  and  the  apos- 
tles, to  authorize  or  sanction  those  denruninational  divisions  which  now  ex'st  aniong 
the  Redeenie.];  hut,  on  the  contrary,  they  require  all  Clinstians  to  iielieve  the  same 
truths.  Rom.  1:  16  •,  to  follow  the  same  example,  Eph.  5:  1;  to  perform  the  same  duties, 
Matt.  7:  Vl\  to  contend  for  the  same  faith,  Jude  3;  to  keep  the  same  ordinances,  and  that 
too  as  tht-y  were  d<  livered,  1  Cor.  II:  2;  to  speak  the  same  thing;  to  he  perfectly  joined 
together  iri  the  same  mind  and  same,  judgment,  I  Cor.  1:  10;  and  in  fine  to  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  Chrisi  hao  commanded.  Mutt.  2g:  20.  Indeed,  the  whole  tenor  of  the 
New  Testament  evidently  goes  to  show,  that  all  Cliristians  are  required  tq  become  one 
in  sentiment  and  practice,  and  ronsr-qurntly  one  denomination,  (i^ee  Matt.  3:  29;  15:  9; 
Rom.  6:  17;  Enh.  4:  3—6,  13;  Phil.  1:  27;  2:  2;  Thes.  3:  6;  Titus  1:  13;  Peter  4:  11.)— 
When,  my  brother,  shall  these  partition  walls  be  d  .molished?  Must  they  always  stand? 
Is  not  the  time  coming,  when  thesc-  "divisions  shall  cease, — when  we  shall  see  eye  to 
eye,  and  lift  up  the  voice  together,  and  speak  the  same  thing,  in  one  spirit,  with  one 
xaind,  striving  together  for  the  faith  of  the  gospel  ?"    Is  not  this  bappy  state  of  things 


134 

Jicld  forth  in  propecy?  Has  it  not  been  guarantied  by  promise?  Did  not  our  Saviour 
pray  for  it?  Have  we  indj-edany  reason  to  doulit  tliat  it  will  be  accomplished?  What 
Christian  otiject  should  th  •  churoh  more  devoutly  labor  and  pray  for,  than  this?  What 
one  is  more  d.-sirablc?  What  would  more  impress  vely  i  onvince  the  world  of  the 
truth  of  ChrisU.iiiity,  tlian  to  see  all  evah>.'elical  denominations  unitins;  on  the  princi- 
ples of  the  jrospel  ?  Is  there  no  ground,  my  hrother,  <  n  which  this  union  may  now  be 
consummated  without  any  sacrifice  of  piincipU-  or  truth? 

Baptist. — My  brother,  your  querie.-.  the  prccrpts  of'lheNew  Testament, 
and  the  waste  places  of  Zion,  show  the  itnpurtanc(-  oi"  a  visible  union 
among  the  evangelical  iiriencis  of  Chri<t.  You  inquire  if  these  partition 
walls  shall  always  siantl.  My  desire  and  prayer  to  God  for  Israel  is,  that 
they  may  not;  and  I  belifve  there  is  ground,  even  now,  on  which  we  can 
all  meet,  without  any  compromises  of  truth  or  duly.  As  far  as  my  knowl- 
edge extends,  the  Baptist  denominaljon  are  ready  and  willing  to  make 
every  sacrifice  they  can,  excppt  consc  entious  principle,  for  the  sake  ol' 
promoting  the  general  union  and  communion  o(  the  godly.  Th's  they 
cannot  sacrifice;  nor  can  any  one  reaso/iably  ask  them  to  do  it.  Now  if 
the  Pedobaptists  were  willing  to  do  the  same,  we  niight  all  become  one 
denommaiion,  and  we  believe  they  are  bound  by  apostolic  example  to 
do  it. 

Pedohaptist. — How,  my  brother,  do  you  make  Ihis  appear? 

Baptist. — Paul,  you  know,  on  a  certain  occasion,  said,  "if  meat  make 
my  brother  to  off  nd,  I  will  eat  no  more  meat  while  the  world  siandeth." 
To  partake  of"  meat  was  evidently  a  gratification  to  the  apostle;  but  he 
vras  willing  to  forego  or  sacrifice  that  gratification,  as  it  was  no  sacrifice 
»f  principle,  provided  it  caused  "his  weak'^r  hroiher  to  offend."  Now, 
mv  brother,  are  we  not  bound  to  follow  the  aposile's  e>;ample,  and  to 
adopt  the  same  principle  that  he  did,  when  by  thus  doing  we  not  oi  ly  re- 
move the  slun)biing  blocks  of  offence  from  the  path  oi  our  brethren,  but 
take  the  most  tff.^ctual  means  to  produce  a  visible,  cordial  union  an*l  com- 
aiunion  among  Christians  cl'  all  evangelical  denominations? 

Pedohaptist  — Most  certainly,  1  tl.'ink  we  are;  and  it  must  be  evident, 
my  friend,  that  every  denomination  of  Christians,  that  is  unwilling  to 
make  every  sacrifice  they  can  conscientiously,  to  bring  about  so  desira- 
ble a  result,  do  not  really  deprecate  or  lament  the  evils  which  ntiturally 
grow  out  of  the  many  divisions  of'  the  church;  but  actually  prefer  disvn- 
ion  io  union,  even  when  the  latter  could  be  purchased  without  any  sacri- 
fice of  principle.  Can  any  denomination,  that  takes  such  ground  as  this, 
duly  appreciate  the  importance  of  the  union  and  peace  of  the  church?  But 
U  you  stated  that  vou  believed  that  there  is  ground,  even  now,  on  which 
we  can  all  unite,  without  any  sacrifice  of  principle,  I  should  like  to  have 
fou  point  it  out. 

B-iptist  — Our  denomination  and  the  Pedobaptists  are  agreed  as  it  rea- 
j^cts  the  terms  of  communion  at  the  Lord's  tab'e  The  only  disagreement 
that  exists,  is  respecting  what  constilutt-s  Christian  baptism.  Jf  we  were 
agreed  in  this,  we  might  become  one  denomination.  The  Baptists  be- 
liere  t)iat  immersion  is  the  only  valid  baptism,  the  Pedobaptists  that  either 
hnmersion,  pouring  or  sprinkling  is  equally  valid,  and  that  baptism  is  nan- 
MSentlal.  It  is  perlipcily  clear,  then,  that  the  Pedobaptists  can  all  submit  to 
immersion,  an!  that  too  without  sacrificing  any  principle,  anil  then  we  could 
Jill  unite  in  communion  at  the  Lord's  Supper.  But.  my  brother,  we  have 
shown,  we  think,  conclusively,  that  if  we  were  to  commune  with  Pedo- 
baptists, we  must  either  embrace  their  sentiments,  or  adopt  principles, 
which,  if  carried  out  by  all  denominations,  would  annihilate  all  gospel  or- 
iiaabces,  and  carry  us  orer  unavoidably  to  Quakeriirtm.     They  can  adopt  a 


135 

cours-^,  as  we  have  shown,  which  wo  ild  require  no  sacrifice  of  principle, 
and  then  w*  could  all  cmmune  together,  and  T  believe  that  the  example 
of  Paul  obligates  them  to  do  this.  1  am  also  fully  convinced  that  if  all 
Christ  ans  could  b?  brought  to  love  each  other  with  pure  hearts  fervently, 
that  prejudices  would  vanish,  partition  walls  would  be  demolished,  and 
all  would  not  only  be  willing,  but  joyfully  adopt  this  .'ue  baptism,  Eph. 
4:  J,  that  we  might  "have  one  body,  one  spirit,  one  Lord,  one  fa  th,  one 
baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  atyove  us  all,  and  througli  us  all, 
and  in  us  all.  '  Si-ch  a  state  of  things  as  this  "  is  a  consumma  ion  de- 
voutly to  be  wished."  Nothing  perhaps  would  go  larlher  to  (  onvince  the 
world  of  the  truth  of  Christianity.  This  would  cause  them  to  exclaim, 
'=  behold  how  these  Christians  love  one  another." 

Now  if  your  denomination,  who  regard  baptism  as  nonessential,  and 
feel  indifferent  whether  pouring,  sprinkling,  or  immersion  be  observed,  (re- 
garding ull  of  these  modes  of  applying  water  as  equally  valid.)  are  not 
willing  to  adopt  that  one  baptism  in  which  we  all  can  unite,  I  e^-k,  on 
whom  n^sts  tlie  guilt  of  ''breaking  the  church  in  pieces,  by  contend  ng  for 
rites  and  Ibrms,"  or  nonessentials  and  costume  in  leligioni"  Who  are 
actually  responsible  lor  these  divisions,  and  the  close  or  n  slricted  commun- 
ion, about  which  there  has  been  so  much  noise;  those,  who  with  the 
Christian  world  on  their  side  for  thirteen  centuries,  believe  that  in>m(rsion 
only  is  baptism,  ai  d  consequently  cannot  practise  either  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling; or  tho-e,  who,  while  they  admit  thai  immfrsion  .s  baptism,  yet  nev- 
ertheless wl!  not  practise  it,  when  ihey  are  well  aware,  that  by  so  doing, 
they  woul.i  not  only  terminate  close  communion,  but  break  down  the 
principal  IvMrrier  that  separates  the  Baptist  and  redobapiist  denoiuinations. 
Pedoliapttst. — Your  arguments,  my  Irend,  have  finally  convnced  me, 
notwithsianding  all  that  has  been  said  against  your  denomination's  being 
close  con;rnunionists,  that  the  sin  of  ch>se  communion  lies  at  the  Pedobap- 
tists'  door;  hence  1  have  resolved,  in  my  own  mind,  to  be  baptized  the  first 
opportunity  that  occurs,  for  lam  determinded  that  my  exanjple  i^hall  go 
no  farther,  either  to  countenance  or  perpetuate  close  communion.  You 
have  now  advanced  your  nost  weighty  arguments,  I  suppose,  to  prove  that 
it  is  the  duty  of'  all  believers  to  be  immersed. 

Buptisr. — By  no  means,  my  brother;  we  could  pass  by  every  argument 
that  we  have  adduced,  to  prove  that  the  immersion  of  a  believer  only  is 
scriptural  baptism,  and  even  admit  (what  cannot  be  proved)  that  your  ar- 
guments, advarced  to  prove  infant  and  adult  spnngling,  go.^pej  baptism, 
are  as  conclusive  and  valid  as  our  own  urged  aoainsi  it,  and  then  prove  in- 
contestibly  that  every  Pedobaptist  believer,  in  health,  is  bound  by  reason, 
phi]oso|)hy.  wisdom,  sound  logic,  and  common  sense,  to  be  baptized  (im- 
mersed,) if  he  has  never  observed  this  rite. 

Pedobaptisl — Indeed,  my  friend,  I  do  not  ste  how  you  can  afmit  that 
our  arguments  in  favor  of  sprinkling  are  as  conclusive  and  valid  as  yours 
against  it,,  and  then  prove  inconteslibly.  that  reason,  wisdom,  prudence, 
etc.  proclaim  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  Pedobaptist  to  be  immersed? 

Baptist. — IVIy  brother,  I  prove  this  by  analogy.  Suppose  thai  a  man  ia 
very  sick,  and  a  council  of  physicians  are  called,  who,  on  consultation, 
come  to  a  perfect  agreement  as  it  respects  the  nature  of  the  man's  disease, 
and  the  medicine  to  be  administered.  The  servant  is  despatched  to  the 
apothecary  to  obtain  th^  medicine;  soon  he  returns  with  three  boxes  of 
pills,  purporting  to  be  the  same  medicine,  and  says  that  the  apothecary 
purchased  them  for  the  same,  (though  they  differ  somewhat  in  appearance,) 
and  that  the  Doctors  can  take  their  choice  of  the  boxes.     The  attending 


13G 

physician  opens  one  oC  the  boxes,  and  passes  it  round  to  each  of  the  phy- 
sicians,  with  the  individual  inquiry,  are  thci^e  the  geniUne  pills.  Doctor? 
Their  replies  advertise  him,  lliat  a  part  of  them  believe  that  liiey  are 
the  genuine  medcine,  a^id  the  otl  erpart  that  thoy  are  not.  He  opens  the 
second  box,  and  passes  it  round,  when  he  finds  that  they  are  again  divided 
in  opinion  j)recisely  as  ut  first  He  then  opens  the  third  box,  and  institutes 
the  same  individual  inquiry  as  before,  when  he  is  apprised  by  their  replies 
that  they  are  unanimous  in  the  bc-liei",  that  {!iis  box  contains  the  genuine 
pills.  He  also  gives  it  as  his  opinion,  liiat  this  box  only  contains  the 
genuine  medicine.  He  now  asks  the  paiient  which  of  the  boxes  of 
pills  he  will  take,  as  the  servant  is  to  return  the  other  two.  The  patient, 
instead  of  giving  a  direct  reply,  addresses  him  as  iollows:  "Do  you.  Doc- 
tor, sincerely  and  consciinliously  believe  that  the  two  first  boxes  ol  pills 
examined,  are  not  gLimine?  Thev  say  that  those  are  more  palatable  and 
easier  to  take.  VN'ould  }  ou  not  take  them,  were  you  in  my  condition?" 
**  I  would  not,  J  could  not  take  them,  were  J  in  your  condition,"  replies  the 
attending  physician,  "ibr  I  dosincerelj'  believe  that  they  are  not  the  right 
medicine."  "Well  th?n,  Doctor,"  says  the  patient,  "as  you  are  all 
agreed  that  one  of  these  boxes  contains  the  genuine  pills,  I  will  therefore 
take  that,  for  ]  am  resolved,  that  J  will  never  take  a  questionable, 
doubtfuL  iiiedidne,  when  J  can  take  an  unquestionable  medicine.  I  wjH 
never  run  the  hazard  of  going  wrong,  when  I  may  be  sure  of  going 
right;  hence,  as  I  wish  to  stand  on  the  sale  side  of  hedge,  I  will  take  the 
medicine  which  you  all  agree  is  genuine."  I  ask  now,  if  this  man  has  not 
acted  prudently,  wisdy  and  conscientiously.  Would  he,  could  he  have 
acted  thus,  had  he  taken  tiie  questionable,  dovbtfiil  medicine?  Now,  my 
friend,  this  is  a  correct  representation  of  the  bapti.-mal  controversy.  A 
part  of  the  Chnstian  world  believe  that  pouring  or  sprinkling  is  valid  bap- 
tism— the  other  part  tliai  they  are  not  But  all  agree  that  immersion  is 
valid  baptism.  Henc«  it  is  perfectly  oDvions,  to  say  the  least,  that  pour- 
ing or  sprinkling  is  questionable,  doubr/nl  baptisra,  aiid  that  immersion  is  un- 
questionable bapt'sm.  Now,  will  a  believer,  who  sincerely  wishes  to  obey 
the  connnand  o(  Christ,  in  the  ordinanc?  of  baptism,  observe  the  question- 
able rite  of  sprinkling  or  jiouring,  when  he  might  observe  the  unquestiona- 
ble Jind  primitive  rite  of  immersion?  Will  a  man  be  sure  he  obeys  Christ 
in  this  ordinance,  or  will  lie  run  the  hazard  of  disobeying? 

Pedobaptist. — Myfiiend,  you  have  proved  conclusively,  and  to  my  entire 
sa*ist:ii'tion,  that  it  is  the  jil;  in  duty  of  every  Pedobaptist  Icliever,  to  observe  the  yn- 
queslion;ib!e  rite  of  itiiiiiersion,  which  is  taking  tlie  safe  side  of  t lie  liaptismal  ques- 
tion, and  tliat  every  one,  who  observes  the  questionable  rite  of  sprinkling  or  pouring, 
takes  the  unsafe  side,  and,  to  s^;y  the  least,  runs  the  hazard  of  not  only  violating  the 
coiiiinaiid  of  Clirist,  but  of  teaching  others,  by  his  example,  to  do  tlie  san5e.  And,  in 
view  of  your  illustrations,  I  do  hot  see  how  any  candid  man,  can  observe  the  nuestion- 
able  rite  of  sprinkling  an  1  pouring  But  suppose  1  sliouUi  reply  to  your  argument  in 
.the  language  of  my  Pe  lobaptist  friends,  when  driven  to  the  extreme:  "that  baptism  is 
nonessential,"  or  at  least,  '  it  is  not  a  saving  ordinance." 

Baptist. — Am  I  to  infer,  my  brother,  that,  as  baptism  is  not  a  saving  or- 
dinance, therefore  it  is  of  no  consequence  whether  it  be  rightly  obserred  or  not? — that 
we  are  under  oldightion  to  ol)serve  onlj'  thuse  precepts,  the  neglect  of  wliich,  we  are 
sure  would  ruin  our  souis?  Ar(^  we  not  bound  to  yield  implicit  obedience  to  every 
command  of  Christ  ? — to  keep  alj  his  "ordinances  as  thev  were  delivered?"  Did 
not  he  who  enjoined  this  ordinance  say,  "  If  ye  love  me,  keep  my  commandments?" 
and  again,  "then  are  ye  my  friends,  if  ye  do  whatsoever  I  command  you?"  plainly 
implying,  that  if  we  do  not  his  commands,  we  are  not  his  friends.  Now  we  have 
shown,  we  think,  conclusively,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  believer,  to  be  immersed, 
who  would  act  as  prudi  ntly  and  wisely,  in  obeying  the  connnand  to  be  baptized,  as  he 
would  act,  where  his  temporal  inter<>st  is  concerned  What  evidence,  then,  have  I  hose 
persons  who  practice  sprinkling  for  baptism,  to  show  that  they  are  actually  the  friends 
«f  Cbrist.    Finally,  my  brother,  if  all  Christians  were  assured  that  they  could  not  be 


137 

.■:av3d,  unless  tbeywere  acMially  baptized,  how  many  do  you  suppose  \voi;lJ  prac- 
tise either  pouring  or  sprinkling. 

Pedobaptist. — I  presi.me  noL  oMe,  for  they  would  all  reason  thus.  If  the 
application  oC  water  in  any  manner  be  baptism,  then  the  Bapt)sts  are  bap- 
tized as  well  as  we;  but  it  immert^ion  cnly  is  bapiis-m,  ihen  those,  and 
those  only,  who  are  in.niersed.  are  baptized,  and  con?eqiuntly  they  alone 
can  be  saved.  Hence,  those  only  who  practise  iuiiners^ion  occupy  safe 
ground. 

Baptist. — Now,  my  brother,  if  that  Christian  only,  who  were  assured  that 
his  eternal  salvation  I'epended  upon  the  validity  of  hi-  bapti^ni.  would  take 
safe  ground,  who  observes  the  rile  ot  immers-on,  ihen  it  is  equally  obvi- 
ous, "that  those  Christians  only  take  .safe  ground  who  pracli-e  immersion, 
when  obedience  with  its  )n:poriant  results  depend  upon  the  validity  of  their 
baptism,  Now,  if  all  Chrisrjan>  take  .<ale  ground  only  when  they  practise 
immer.sion,  then  it  is  equally  manifest,  that  the  Cliurch  takes  safe  ground 
only  when  she  requires  immersion.  Therefore  none  should  be  admitted  into 
the  church,  nor  to  the  communion  table,  who  have  not  been  immersed. 
My  friend,  the  general  union  and  communion  of'  the  godly  is  a  -'consum 
mation  devoutly  to  bi- wished;"  but  I  am  confident  that  they  will  never 
unite  only  on  the  sate  side  of' this  controverted  suhject.  And  as  all  believe 
that  immerson  is  baptism,  those  who  prefer  urion  to  disunion,  will  prec- 
tise  that  only.  Now,  Iroin  v\hat  has  been  said.  I  believe  that  it  is  evident 
that  immersion  is  essential  to  obedience; — es-ential  to  settle  all  doubts  in 
the  mind  of  a  Christian,  about  the  val'dity  of  his  baptism; — essential  to 
the  union  and  communion  of  ail  evangelical  denominations;  and  conse- 
quently essential  to  the  salvation  of  sinners,  ibr  there  are  millions  of  this 
class  who  can  only  bn  saved,  by  Christians  becoming  united  in  "  the  apos- 
tles' doctrine  anH  fellowship."  Finally,  my  dear  brother,  in  conclusion,  I 
would  say,  that  I  am  not  surprised,  that  you  have  changed  your  views  on 
this  interesting  subj'^ct,  when  I  call  to  mind,  your  prayerful  determination, 
at  our  first  interview,  to  seek  for  truth,  and  "  to  renounce  every  religious 
sentiment,  not  authorizpd  by  the  word  of  God."  If  you  are  now  sati-fied 
what  is  your  Master's  will,  "  happy  are  you,  if  you  do  it,"  You  also  have 
the  consolation  of'  knowing,  that  you  are  not  alone  in  your  change:  multi- 
tudes who  have  fhoroughlv  and  prayeriuUy  examined  this  subject,  litve  been 
conducted  to  the  same  result;*  njultitudes  more  are  still  in  doubt  respect- 
ing the  validity  of  their  baptism,  and  probably  will  thus  continue  until  they 
are  willing  to  lake  tlie  safe  side  of  this  question. 

Now,  my  Chiisiian  brother,  may  God  grant  that  his  word  may  prove,  as 
a  lamp  to  our  feet,  and  a-  a  light  to  our  path,  and  guide  us  into  all  truth. 
And  may  it  be  our  fervant  prayer,  that  the  lime  may  speedily  come,  when 
all  Christians  shall  be  united  in  the  faith,  order,  and  fellowship  of  the 
gospel. 

*  I  have  setu  notices  of  the  baptlzni  of  some  eiirht  or  ten  Pedohaptist  ministers,  since 
this  year  conimenci-d.  Prof.  Jewetr  informs  u^,  in  his  work  ou^nptism,  published  in 
1S39,"  that  "a  Baptist  minister  of  West'Tu  Virginia,  within  the  h-.n  four  years.  Visa 
baptized  over  two  hundred  persons,  who  had  alreany  been  members  of  Pedobaptisi 
churches.  An  aged  minister,  now  residing  in  Mississippi,  has,  at  various  times,  buried 
with  Christ  in  baptism,  more  than  four  hundred  persons  of  this  class,  of  whom  fort7 
were  Pedobaptist  ministers!" 


CONTENTS. 

PBEFACE.— INTRODUCTION, 3 

CONVERSATION. 

I'ttKHMiNARY  OnstRVATio.vs— IJaptism  Jin  indispensable  prerequisite  to  Church 
Coiniuuuion,  and  Faitli  equally  as  indispensa  ile  a  prerequisite  to  Uaptisiu,. .. .      S 

Subjects  of  Bai-tism. — Infant  Bnptisin  not  tauglit  in  llie  Commission  of  Chritt; — 
nor  fovin.l  in  ilu;  IIou!«ehold  Baptisms; — nor  in  the  Abratiamic  Covenaiit; — nor 
in  uny  puit  of  ilie  Scriptures;— nor  in  tlhr  Church,  uniil  the  close  of  the  second 
centu.y;— Objections  urged,  answered,  and  explanations  of  certain  passages 
given, 1« 

Mode"*  of  Baptism. — Thesignifiiiation  of  Baptizo  (from  which  Baptism  is  derived) 
is  ascertained  to  be  Immersion: — First,  by  Classical  .md  Saired  usage;  Second, 
by  the  figurative  use  of  the  term;  Third,  uy  the  places  selected  for  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  rite;  Fourth,  by  the  practice  of  tlie  early  Christian^  and  tlie  Chris- 
tian World  for  1300  years;  and  Lastly,  by  the  change  of  the  rite  of  Immersion 
for  Sprinkling, " 2S 

fexplanatioii  of  passages  where  the  word  Baptizo  is  translated  to  wash;  nndothers 
where  the  ordinance  is  mentioned;— Objections  to  exclusive  Immersion  an- 
swered      52 

CONVERSATION  RESUMED. 

Farther  objections  and  questions  answered,  including  amongothers,  "Mode  of  Bap- 
tism,"' Baptism  a  Seal,  etc 68 

Jolui's  Bap-i?m  essentially  Christian  Baptisnii — Christ's  Baptism,  its  design;— The 
argument  that  Pouring  is  Baptism  ansvv.  red;— Bapusm  ascertained  to  be  Im- 
niersion,  liy  substitution;— in  Baptism,  man  is  applied  to  the  water,  and  not  the 
water  to  the  man, ?• 

The  literal  import  of  the  Greek  prepositions  en,  ek,  eis,  used  in  conneition  with 
Baptizo,  is  in  favor  of  Immersion,  and  apo  does  not  militate  against  it;— The 
reseinldance  of  Immersion  to  a  Burial;— Th  ;  Baiitisis  notguiltv  of  Bigotry,  nor 
of  Sectiirianism,  nor  of  dividing  the  American  Bdde  Society; — Pedobaptistsnot 
blessed  in  the  observance  of  the  rite  of  Sprinkling,  as  Baptists  are  in  the  ob- 
servance of  the  rite  of  Immersion;— The  Baptis  s  tiie  first,  in  modern  times,  to 
advance  and  defi  nl  the  principles  of  Civi)  and  Ueligioiis  Liberty,  etc.; — The 
importan  e  wliich  Baptists  mid  Peilobaptisrs  respectively  attach  to  the  rite  of 
Baptism; — '["he  affirmation  that  the  Baptsts  arr  of  recent  origin  consid  ri  d,  and 
abun'latit  historical  evidence  adduced,  tosbow  th-;t  persons  holding  their  distin- 
guishing sentiments,  have  e.xistedin  everv  i;ge  of  the  Cburch, 95 

CONVERSATION  RESUMf  D. 

General  remarks  about  Close  Communion; — Thedistin:tion  between  Christian  and 
Church  Fellowship, 114 

Restricted  Church  Communion  not  peculiar  to  the  Baptists; — Pedobaptists,  as  well 
as  Baptists,  restri^-t  their  coinmunion  to  those  wliom  they  deem  baptized; — Pe- 
dobaptists morerestrii-ied  in  thei*- communion  ih.m  the  Baptists-.— Pedobaptism 
the  legitimate  cause  of  what  is  termed  Close  Commu.nion; — Sincerity  alone  does 
not  prove  tliat  a  man  isriglit; — The  practice  of  th  ■  Apostles; — The  Lord's  Sup- 
per a  Church  ordinance,— The  principles  of  Commnn  on  adopted  by  Pedobap- 
tists sometimes  involve  them  in  the  most  gross  inconsistencies, 117 

The  reason  Baptists  do  not  commune  wiih  all  whom  they  deem  baptized;— Metho- 
dists violate  their  Rules  of  Discipline  by  practising  Free  or  Mixed  Commun- 
ion;—Tlie  proper  boundary  to  external  Church  Communion;— Tract  No.  33;— 
Baptists  could  not  commune  with  Metliodlsts,  even  by  their  Rules  of  Disci- 
pline;— The  practice  of  Mi.xed  Commun.on  will  not  promote,  but  prevent 
UNION,  and  perpetuate  disunion; — Its  very  origin  sliows  that  it  is  the  offspring 
of  disodedience, 144 

Baptism  not  the  only  prerequisite  to  Church  Communion;— If  Baptists  were  to 
commune  with  Pedobaptis's,  tliey  muj-t  adopt  principles  that  would.  If  carried 
out,  annihilate  all  gospel  ordinances;— Other  obje-tions  answered,  and  explan- 
ations given;— The  duty  of  all  Christians  to  become  one  in  sentiment  and 
practice;— Pedobaptists  are  obi  gated  by  Apostolic  example,  to  be  Immersed;— 
Pedobaptists  alone  are  r  sponsible  for  Close  Communion;— The  duty  of  all  Pe- 
dobaptist  Believers  to  be  Immersed, Itt 

»  The  word  m.)I)e  is  sometimes  used  in  this  conversation  to  designate  the  true  impott 
•r  action  of  Baptism. 


